1

Ricardian Bulletin Summer 2008

Contents

2

3

4

7

9

12

15

17

21

24

25

31

34

38

41

43

45

47

48

50

54

56

62

63

63

64

From the Chairman

The Wills Index

Society News and Notices

New Members’ Survey

Who Do You Think You Are? Live

Media Retrospective

A Visit to Bruges by Sue and Dave Wells

News and Reviews

Meet The Historian: An interview with Dr Ian Mortimer

New Members

Proceedings of the Triennial Conference 2008: Part 1: Perspective

The Man Himself: by Annette Carson

Archaeological Excavations at Greyfriars, Leicester: by Chris Wardle

More Research - Tempting Diversions: by Toni Mount

Margaret of York - A Genuinely Scandalous Dispensation? - a response: by Mark Ballard

An Impromptu Debate

The Real Reason Why Hastings Lost his Head: some thoughts by Wendy Moorhen

Correspondence

The Barton Library

Report on Society Events

Future Society Events

Branches and Groups

Branch and Groups Contacts - Update

Obituaries

Recently Deceased Members

Calendar

Contributions Contributions are welcomed from all members. All contributions should be sent to the Technical Editor, Lynda Pidgeon.

Bulletin Press Dates 15 January for spring issue; 15 April for summer issue; 15 July for autumn issue; 15 October for winter issue.

Articles should be sent well in advance.

Bulletin & Ricardian Back Numbers Back issues of the The Ricardian and Bulletin are available from Judith Ridley. If you are interested in obtaining any

back numbers, please contact Mrs Ridley to establish whether she holds the issue(s) in which you are interested. For contact details see back inside cover of the Bulletin

The Ricardian Bulletin is produced by the Bulletin Editorial Committee,

Printed by Micropress Printers Ltd. © Richard III Society, 2008

2

From the Chairman

I ’m writing this a few days after the Society appeared for the first time at the Who Do You

Think You Are? Live exhibition at Olympia, and what a success it has been for us! There was

a lot of interest from people who visited our stand, many new members were recruited and there

were some welcome initial sales of the Wills Index CD, and of course, we gained some signifi-

cant positive publicity by just being there. (One of the new members lives just around the corner

from where I grew up, so we spent a few minutes reminiscing, as you can imagine.) My grateful

thanks go to all involved with this success, to Wendy Moorhen for organising everything, and

especially to Josephine Tewson for her absolutely sterling work on the Saturday. She was cer-

tainly our star attraction.

But that won’t be the end of it. Flushed with our success, next year we will be back at Olym-

pia, while this year we will be at the Leeds Medieval Congress in July (see Jane Trump’s Low

Down for the background to this venture). In August we will be making our presence felt at Bos-

worth, utilising the portable stand that we purchased last year. If you are going to the battlefield

centre for the anniversary events be sure to visit. We are truly making our presence felt where it

matters.

The publication of the Wills Index is an important milestone for the Society. It is the culmina-

tion of over a decade’s work by the many members engaged in its compilation and is a credit to

them all. It will do much to enhance further the Society’s reputation amongst historians and re-

searchers of all kinds. Again, my sincere thanks go to all those involved.

As you will see, we have another full issue, and it is no understatement to say that the Bulletin

just goes on getting better and better, and these are not my words, they are yours. We have the

first in what, I hope, will be a regular series of interviews, kicking off with a fascinating inter-

view with historian Dr Ian Mortimer. Annette Carson contributes to The Man Himself and you

can read more about Annette’s views in her new book (see page 19 for details). We continue the

debate around Lord Hastings with Wendy Moorhen’s response to David Johnson’s recent arti-

cles. The triennial conference held in Cirencester provided some lively and thought provoking

talks and we are publishing shortened versions in the Bulletin. We start with Anne Sutton’s set-

ting of the scene, and Livia Visser-Fuchs’s account of what people were saying about those two

princes on the other side of the channel. We also have Ken Hillier’s review of the whole week-

end, which gives a real taste of what it was like to be there.

You will also get your 2008 Ricardian this month; a feast of articles and reviews providing

much challenging and informative reading. Can it really be five years since we launched our

journal on an annual basis with the festschrift edition honouring Anne Sutton’s twenty-five years

as editor? Indeed it is, and that means that, this year, we celebrate Anne’s thirtieth year as editor.

To repeat words spoken at the launch of the festschrift, ‘In a world where “dumbing down”

seems rife, The Ricardian has maintained and enhanced its high standards of scholarship and that

has been an invaluable asset to this Society’. This remains even truer today, so we salute Anne

again and may we hope that she will go on and on for many years yet to come?

3

Looking ahead to the AGM and members’ weekend in York, I ask you to get your bookings

in for all the events. It promises to be a great weekend, especially with the opportunity to visit

Middleham, somewhere hard to get to when you don’t have your own transport.

At the moment, everywhere seems beset with bleak economic news, so let me finish with

some good news. The Society has its house well in order, it’s making good progress on many

fronts and the cause of good King Richard is prospering. I wish you all an enjoyable summer,

and for those south of the equator, a relaxing winter.

Phil Stone

The Wills Index

The Wills Index is the culmination of ten

year’s work by members of the Society and

the CD-ROM contains a tabular index to

over 28,000 testators of English wills and

testaments that have been published in serial

publications, books and other printed matter

from the eighteenth century to the year

2000. The criteria for the selection of these

published wills and testaments are that they

were either made by the testator or proved

by an English ecclesiastical court between 1

January 1399 and 24 March 1540. Included

on the CD is a tabular summary describing

the sources. There is also a leaflet to intro-

duce the index, its sources and the conven-

tions used.

The aim of the index is to enable the user to

ascertain whether a particular will, or part of

it, has been published and, therefore, mak-

ing it more readily accessible to historians

and genealogists than an extant manuscript

copy stored in a remote archive.

You will need Microsoft Excel and Word

installed on your PC/MAC in order to view the

contents of the CD.

The index is dedicated to the memory of four members of the project team who have sadly

passed away, Daphne Booth, Philomena Connolly, Philomena Jones and Marian Treagus.

The Wills Index is available from the Sales Liaison Officer. See inside back cover for contact

details. It is priced at £9.99 plus £1.50 for postage and packing. There is a reduced price of £7.99

(plus p&p) for those who participated in the Wills Index Project. Members who pre-ordered the

index at the Triennial Conference should now send their payment direct to the Membership Liai-

son Officer.

Index to Testators of English

late Medieval and early

Tudor Wills and Testaments

1399 –1540 published in serial

publications, books

and other printed matter

between 1717-2000

Richard III Society

4

Society News and Notices

Richard III Society Members’ Weekend & Annual General Meeting,

York, Friday 3 to Sunday 5 October 2008

Call to Branches and Groups If your branch/group wishes to make a report at the AGM, please let the Secretary know by Fri-

day 19 September so that you may be included on the AGM Agenda. Reports can be made in

person by a branch/group representative or, for overseas branches/groups, if no local representa-

tive is to be in York at the time of the AGM, in printed form, to be read at the AGM. Reports

should not exceed three minutes and should consist of new material not previously reported ver-

bally or in print.

Full details and logistics for the Members’ Weekend and AGM will be published in the au-

tumn Bulletin but, in the meantime, if you have any queries, please contact the Secretary – ad-

dress inside back cover.

Programme for Members’ Weekend Friday 3 October: Drinks Reception at Barley Hall, Coffey Yard, off Stonegate

Wine and soft drinks with nibbles. A great start to the weekend and a pleasant way for members

to get together with each other before going into York to find dinner.

Cost: £5.60 per head.

Saturday 4 October: AGM & Members’ Day at The Merchant Adventurers’ Hall, Fossgate

Buffet lunch: Selection of 8 items, including sandwiches, savoury wraps and snacks, fruit and

desserts. Vegetarian choices are included.

Notice is hereby given that the 2008 Annual General Meeting of the Richard III

Society will be held on Saturday 4 October 2008 in The Merchant Adventurers’ Hall,

Fossgate, York YO1 9XD

The formal business of the meeting will include reports from the officers, the presentation

of the annual accounts of the Society up to 21 March 2008 and the election of the Executive

Committee for the next year. Exact timings for the AGM will be notified in the autumn Bul-

letin.

Nominations for the Executive Committee should reach the Secretary, Mrs Jane Trump, at

Gorsedene, Bagshot Road, Knaphill, Woking, Surrey GU21 2SF not later than Friday 19

September. All nominations must be proposed and seconded, and accepted in writing by the

member proposed.

Resolutions for the Agenda, proposed and seconded, should also reach the Secretary by 19

September.

If you intend to come to the AGM, please book your place by completing the booking form

in this Bulletin.

5

Cost: £12 per head – drinks will be sold separately on the day.

(Tea/coffee during the Members’ Day will be purchased on the day.)

Evening Banquet: 3 course dinner with lamb shanks for main course (plus vegetarian option of

spinach & ricotta cannelloni in tomato sauce – caterers to be notified in advance so please do

let me know if you wish to have this option) with Bucks Fizz on arrival before the banquet.

Wine, water and soft drinks included.

Dress code: flexible – black tie or lounge suits for men; cocktail dresses or smart-casual for la-

dies; medieval dress for those who wish to indulge.

Cost: £36.00 per head.

Sunday 5 October: Coach Trip to Middleham

Coach to Middleham to visit the castle. Drive on to Leyburn for free time to have lunch and ex-

plore Leyburn. Return to York for around 5 p.m. with drop-off at York Station for those travel-

ling home by train.

Cost: £8.00 per head. (Entrance to Middleham Castle and lunch are not included and will be

paid for individually on the day.)

I do hope as many members as possible can make it to York for what promises to be a very

enjoyable weekend and a great way to transact Society business but, more importantly, for mem-

bers from different areas to get together and catch up on each other’s news.

Unfortunately I have not had as many booking forms as I anticipated back so please can

I urge you to return your booking forms (to be found in this Bulletin) with payment as soon

as possible. I appreciate that October seems a long way off but, as an organiser, I need to

know numbers by early July to plan accordingly. Many thanks.

Jane Trump

Executive Committee – The Low Down The EC have been busy pursuing many of the same projects

I covered in the last ‘Low Down’. This is how it goes. So

many projects are on-going and so many events have to be

prepared for months in advance – and the amount of organi-

sation that goes into many of the PR events the Society is

now involved in is incredible. Wendy has been working

overtime to prepare for Who Do You Think You Are? Live

and using her extensive expertise to ensure the Society can

promote itself in the most effective manner. The EC feel

keenly that, if we are to take part in such events, the Society

must promote a professional image. At Who Do You Think

You Are? Live the Society promoted the Wills Index but as

importantly, it promoted itself with a view to encouraging

new membership. However, the Society is keen to gain ku-

dos in both the popular and academic worlds and, to that

end, we are also taking a stall at this year’s Leeds Congress.

At this prestigious gathering of history academics we shall

showcase the forthcoming transcription of the Logge wills

and further promote the Society as a serious body of re-

searchers. We also aim to sponsor a series of talks in the

2009 Congress and are at present looking into themes and

speakers. The EC have re-vamped the Society brochure to

reflect changes made since the last one was launched and we

will include it at the above two events and to ensure that it is

made available at all relevant locations and events going

forward. It would be wonderful if we could have a member

The Society’s New Brochure

6

dedicated to overseeing this – any offers?

In my last ‘Low Down’, I mentioned that the EC had been looking into the reasons for attri-

tion amongst members and had sent out a survey to relatively new members (within their first

year). We are delighted to say that, on the whole, people were happy with their membership and

what they received from the Society. However, the EC have taken on board comments and sug-

gestions made and will be acting upon them. A full report is printed in this Bulletin.

The Members’ Weekend for 2008 in York is slowly taking shape and we are looking into a

speaker for the AGM. It is always difficult to anticipate numbers when arranging catering, which

is awkward when caterers expect confirmation of numbers very early, so, if you are intending to

attend the Members’ Weekend, please can you make the Society Secretary very happy by return-

ing your form as soon as possible, even though the event may seem rather a long way off at pre-

sent? My thanks go to those who have responded already.

Our Treasurer, Paul Foss, took a detour whilst out in Spain recently to visit the Richard III

College, the principal of which, James Berry is a member of the Society. Paul was very gratified

to discover that College pupils knew more about Richard and his times than he did. James is ob-

viously doing sterling work. Wouldn’t it be grand if more UK colleges and schools covered the

fifteenth century so assiduously?

Finally, Richard III meets The Beano! Well, no, not exactly, but the Society has been ap-

proached by a company which produces Shakespeare plays in comic form and their latest project

is Richard III. They are keen to work with the Society to include facts on the historical Richard

in contrast to the dramatic character. This is encouraging. These books should appeal to the

younger generation so it will be a great way to introduce Richard III to students who may not get

to know about him from their history teachers and it is yet another example of people in the me-

dia approaching the Society for assistance. The website plus the persistence and hard work of the

PR team has been invaluable in bringing the Society to the attention of those people who are so

crucial to bringing Richard and his times to life for the populace. There is still much to be done to

persuade those in the media that the ‘revisionist’ version of Richard can be just as enticing and

entertaining as the ‘traditional’ version but we are definitely getting there.

Jane Trump

Membership Matters There will be changes in the membership department later this year. When we took over the de-

partment in February 2006 it was an interim appointment until we were both retired. Wendy’s

retirement finally took place at the end of February this year and we will be re-locating perma-

nently to France at the end of October.

Two members have agreed to take on the roles of membership manager and membership liai-

son officer and further details will be published in the autumn Bulletin.

In the meantime we will be writing to all UK members later in the summer to remind you

about the new subscription rates and that standing order forms will need to cancelled and new

forms completed.

Brian and Wendy Moorhen

St Edmundsbury Press St Edmundsbury Press have been our printers for many years, first printing The Ricardian when

it was a quarterly publication and then the new-style Bulletin. Unfortunately the company has

now ceased to trade. The news came as The Ricardian and the Bulletin were in preparation and

the EC needed to find a new printer very quickly. After a selection process, Micropress Printers

of Halesworth, Suffolk, have been appointed. This has of course led to delay in the printing our

journals but normal service will be resumed for the autumn.

7

New Members’ Survey

In January this year, a survey document was sent to all members who joined the Society between

January 2006 and September 2007, a total of 199, of which 49 were based overseas. The Execu-

tive Committee took this action with a view to seeking the views of new members on a number

of issues under the following headings:

Overall impression of the Society

Communication

Contacts Scores were invited on various sub-headings with 1 being ‘excellent’ and 5 ‘poor’. Comments

were also invited on both specific and general matters.

As at May 2008, 51 responses had been received and a summary of these is given below.

Not all respondents answered all questions, hence not all of the numbers in the table add up to

fifty-one.

Many respondents added remarks, many of which were complimentary, and it is clear that

generally the Society is meeting most people’s expectations. Over 90% of people replying ranked

the Society as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. The changes that have been made in recent months have

generally been received positively. Of course, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln – you can’t please

all of the people all of the time.

Some members commented on the work done by the ‘office staff’. We felt that we should

clarify that the Society has no staff and, both at national and branch level, relies on the work of

volunteers to get things done. The low awareness of the e-newsletter is a matter of some concern and this will be examined

further. Any members wishing to receive the e-newsletter should provide their e-mail details to

Richard Van Allen (contact e-mail address: richardvanallen@imagecomm.co.uk).

8

There were some specific comments or personal issues, which are being addressed by the

Executive Committee.

Comments were made about the difficulty in travelling to branch meetings or events and this

emphasises the need for high quality and regular communication via the Bulletin, branch newslet-

ters or electronic media.

A small number of ‘new’ members were former members that had re-joined and their re-

sponses have also, in the main, been positive.

With any survey, there are bound to be contradictions; for example, there were several com-

ments to the effect that the Society focused too much on Richard III and should widen its remit to

the medieval age to provide new members with more detailed information, or did not encourage

much ‘anti-Ricardian’ commentary. We contacted the research officer for her comments and she

responded as follows>

We are indeed a very focused Society with a specific mission statement. However, in or-

der to study King Richard we cannot do so without understanding the times in which he

lived and we encourage study and research into the late medieval period. The policy of the

Bulletin team is to encourage articles which reflect this wider breadth whilst always trying

to ensure there is something specific to Richard. The events organised by the research

committee, similarly cover aspects of late medieval life, such as medieval women, art,

heraldry and religion (details of past events can be found on the website). The website,

whilst focusing on the activities of the Society, does carry an extensive section on King

Richard but it also has sections on the Wars of the Roses in general and the fifteenth cen-

tury. We very much wish to expand the latter section and would welcome contributions

from members. The Ricardian carries a wide selection of articles based on original re-

search as well as around thirty book reviews each issue, which keep members up to date

with recent publications relating to the fifteenth century.

With regard to not encouraging anti-Ricardian commentary, inevitably members tend to

be pro-Richard but any ‘party-line’ that we may have would encourage Richard to be

judged fairly and sensibly, in other words ‘warts and all’. Providing nothing is flagrantly

inaccurate members’ views are published in the Bulletin, for example The Man Himself

article published in the spring issue, which has attracted some support for the author’s

views.

We are pleased to say that there was no indication of any desire to establish a ‘fan club’.

The survey has been helpful in providing feedback to the EC about new members’ first im-

pressions of the Society and we would like to take this opportunity of thanking all those who

took the time to complete and return the questionnaire and for the comments made. Society offic-

ers can be contacted by Ricardian members, old and new, using the details set out inside the back

cover of the Bulletin.

Thanks are due to Howard Choppin who designed the survey on the EC’s behalf.

Susan and Dave Wells

9

Who Do You Think You Are? Live 2-4 May, Olympia, London

SUE AND DAVE WELLS

T his was the first occasion at which we had represented the Society as members of the Exec-

utive Committee. We were attending on the Saturday and approached the day with enthusi-

asm, but also with some trepidation – would we be able to do the Society justice at this high pro-

file event in ‘selling’ its high academic and scientific achievements in connection with the Wills

Index and Logge projects and the DNA research into forward genealogy? There was no reason to

be concerned. In the event, we had a great day and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves.

The Who Do You Think You Are? Live exhibition was designed to follow on from the recent

BBC television series which traced the family history of celebrities. The exhibition contained

several hundred stands providing a variety of methodologies and information for both the ama-

teur and professional genealogist and historian, together with historical and special interest

groups.

Celebrities such as Tony Robinson, Natasha Kaplinsky, Alistair McGowan and others spoke

in open theatre areas about their family history and these were particularly popular. We would

have liked to invite Tony Robinson to the stand to follow-on from his TV programme about

Cecily and the French archer but he was involved in presentations and interviews all day.

The highlight for the Society on the day we attended, however, was our very own celebrity,

Josephine Tewson. She was an absolute star attraction and visitors stopped and looked, and

looked again and finally came out with, ‘I know you, you’re on the telly aren’t you?’ Jo chatted

with the visitors, signed autographs and at one point even went into character as Elizabeth in the

popular TV series Keeping Up Appearances.

The show was essentially three exhibitions in one. The major section was devoted to family

history and genealogy, a military history section displayed some items of military equipment

including light munitions, a first World War tank and more modern machines for comparison and

finally, a small section devoted to archaeology with ‘finds’ on display.

There were family research stalls for many counties and the Yorkshire stand had some splen-

did white rose badges which, sadly, were only for use by their own representatives.

The Society’s stand was well located, immediately next to a herbal and fruit wine seller – who

offered regular free tastings! – and just round the corner from an Italian ice cream stand with

some delicious products, to which many of the team will be able to testify.

Our stand presented a very professional image and proved to be a good attraction to passers-

by, many of whom started the conversation with ‘he was much maligned wasn’t he?’ or ‘he had a

bad press’. So, maybe, the word is getting out at last. Others wanted to know what the Society

stood for and ‘what do you do?’ was a frequent question. We were all, of course, very happy to

answer at some length. This helped to sign-up a number of new members.

The wills index also generated a lot of interest and the CD-Rom was a popular seller, as was

Jeremy Potter’s Good King Richard? amongst those who wanted to read a little more about our

man.

Overall, the event was very well attended throughout each day. Clearly, historical and family

research is a very popular pastime. Whilst there were several areas where food and drink could

10

be purchased and eaten, seats were at a premium and Sue’s dash for a free table at the Crush Bar

would have rivalled an Olympic sprinter.

All in all, we felt that the Society’s presence at this event was a very positive move in further-

ing our image and giving positive publicity to our raison d’être. We understand on the final day,

when approached by the organisers, Phil and other members of the EC decided we should sign up

again for next year’s show.

11

Postscript from Sue and Dave: We were catching up on recorded programmes and watched

BBC’s ‘In Search of Medieval Britain’. The presenter visited Nottingham and Britain’s oldest

pub where she was shown basic brewing skills by Martin Gelling, who was the friar on the adja-

cent stand at the show. See picture on p. 10

12

Media Retrospective

From Karen M. Halstrom, Copenhagen,

Denmark

Human Monsters. The Definitive Edition, by

Michael H. Price and George E. Turner, Lu-

minary Press, Baltimore, USA, 2007

As well as an informative chapter on the

1939 Rowland V. Lee film Tower of London

with Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, etc., the

Afterword ‘Vincent Price and the Villains

that still pursued him’ reveals that the actor

‘reserved a singular affection for Richard III’

when he played in the 1972 re-make of the

above film, but with notable reservations. ‘A

terrible thing has happened to poor Richard,’

he told interviewer Michael H. Price. ‘This

hideous little book called The Daughter of

Time, by one Josephine Tey, a mystery writer

who should have stuck to the perfectly re-

spectable butler-did-it pot boilers, pretended

some years ago to have proved that Richard

III was a victim of one of the greatest hoaxes

in history, that he wasn’t a villain, oh, no, not

at all, that he was a nice guy. Eeh! Blamed it

all on those dreadful Tudors, who of course

were a pretty flawed lot in their own right, but

in fact rather put an end to Richard’s epic

trouble-making. A terribly influential treatise

– emphasis on the terrible.’ (Josephine Tey

often is hailed, backhandedly, as a mystery

writer for people who despise mysteries. In

other words: why bother? The Daughter of

Time concerns a police inspector who be-

comes fascinated by an official portrait of

King Richard III and concludes that such a

pleasant-looking man could never have com-

mitted all those dreadful deeds. As Vincent

Price put it on another occasion: ‘what a

crock!’

‘But before all these new-made geniuses

started to iron the kinks out of our mad Rich-

ard’s deliciously bad reputation, Shakespeare,

that extraordinary genius of so few short cen-

turies ago, posed the question without preju-

dice: was Richard a villain or wasn’t he? Now

there’s an extraordinary scene in Shake-

speare’s Richard III where – right on the eve

of the Battle of Bosworth – Richard is trying

to catch a few winks and suddenly the ghosts

of all those people he has murdered on the

way to the throne appear to him: the little

princes, smothered to death; Clarence,

drowned in his favorite variety of wine;

Buckingham, Richard’s best friend, beheaded.

And so Buckingham’s ghost tells him, “dream

on, dream on, of bloody deeds and death” ...

‘Whereupon, of course, Richard wakes,

telling himself – and let’s condense things a

bit here, shall we? – “Alack I love myself.

Wherefore ... Oh no! Alas I rather hate myself

for hateful deeds ... My conscience hath a

thousand sev’ral tongues, and ev’ry tongue

brings in a sev’ral tale, and ev’ry tale con-

demns me for a villain ... There is no creature

loves me and if I die no soul will pity me.

And wherefore should they, since that I find

in myself no pity to myself?”

‘And there you have it,’ Price said. ‘My

kind of villain. And so why the blazes can’t

the eggheads and revisionists leave him alone

for all the rest of us to enjoy?’

From Geoffrey Wheeler

The Times Literary Supplement, 21 March

2008. ‘Tey Time’ by David Horspool, re-

viewing Nicola Upson, An Expert in Murder

(Faber).

‘There is nothing new in novelists paying

their literary respects to the authors of classic

detective fiction, writing in the approved style

as an act of homage to the masters. ... In An

Expert in Murder, Nicola Upson takes ...

golden-age crime novelist, Josephine Tey,

and attempts something slightly different

from, and harder than, pure pastiche. [She]

casts Tey as a character in a world with ele-

ments both from her own detective fiction,

and from the background to her work as a

playwright. As Gordon Daviot, Tey ... wrote

Richard of Bordeaux, one of the hits of early

1930s theatre ... The novel begins with Tey

travelling down to London from her native

Scotland to see the final performances [of

Richard of Bordeaux] ... A (seemingly)

chance encounter on the train with a young

13

woman ... who is murdered at the end of the

journey, sets off the action ... There is much

to enjoy in the novel ... Nicola Upson knows

that much of the appeal of Richard of Bor-

deaux lay in its pacifist message, and her plot,

which turns on buried secrets from the First

World War, is overshadowed by forebodings

of a second. ... Josephine Tey may not be a

familiar enough figure to sustain a long se-

ries, but a sequel, at least, would be very wel-

come.’

Daily Telegraph ‘Seven’ Magazine, 23 March

2008, by Sandi Toksvig

My partner comes from Lancashire and I am

often berated for failing to recall whether to

support white or red roses in the great War of

the Roses. I think it’s too long ago to take

sides, but the bit I like about this critical piece

of Britsh history is that the woman who led

the Lancastrians was French. It was today in

1429 that Margaret of Anjou was born. She

married Henry VI of England in Titchfield,

Hampshire, a place otherwise well known for

housing a branch of the Office for National

Statistics. ... Her son’s inheritance was threat-

ened by Richard, Duke of York, and her hus-

band was unable to do much except dribble,

so Margaret found herself in charge, literally.

She led the army at the Battle of Tewkesbury

on 4 May 1471. ... I like to think she wore her

armour with the kind of élan only a French-

woman might achieve. ...

Times 2, 3 April 2008 - ‘Last Night’s TV:

Andrew Billen reviewing BBC 4’s ‘Most

Sincerely: Hughie Green’:

‘A merciless portrayal (by Trevor Eve) …

like Richard III, Green was such a fascinating

monster that you hardly missed the lack of a

convincing psychological explanation’.

Time Out, 27 March – 2 April 2008 ‘Kings of

Convenience’ article on Shakespeare’s royal

characters by Jane Edwardes.

‘Richard, Edward IV’s youngest brother,

was a skilful commander and a master of

spin. Reports of his physical deformities are

said to have been grossly exaggerated and he

has some powerful supporters today who de-

clared that he is much maligned and there is

nothing to link him with the murder of his

nephews ... Was he any worse than his con-

temporaries? Possibly not.

The Lancaster and York Stamps Unlike the

previous issues of covers depicting James

Bond and Working Dogs, the Royal Mail’s

Lancaster and York stamps attracted little

publicity in the UK press. The Sunday Tele-

graph (6 Feb) headlined ‘A Boy King Re-

membered’ under a postcard-size reproduc-

tion of the Edward V image, adding that he

only ‘reigned for two months, before, it is

believed, he was murdered by his uncle Rich-

ard III’. The Times (28 Feb), heralding

‘Stamps Deliver Heads of State’, printed a

full colour frieze of the set, but only a small

paragraph on their launch was reported in

‘The Daily Telegraph’.

Naturally, the specialist magazines gave

more prominent coverage. Stamp Magazine

(March 2008) devoted five pages to an article

by Cyril Parsons,1 ‘Golden Sovereigns’, a

thematic guide to the English monarchy on

stamps world wide. These included the nota-

ble Barbuda 1970s series, and those of St

Vincent (1977), both of which strove for

some authenticity by including modern art-

ists’ versions of the Edward V figure that

appears in Lambeth Palace MS 265, and, in

the latter series as well, the Canterbury effigy

of Henry IV (see spring Bulletin, Correspond-

ence, p.46). This issue of Stamp Magazine

also included two pages contributed by Julia

Lee on ‘Top Covers’, illustrating some of the

First Day Covers soon to be available (at least

two of which unfortunately featured anachro-

nistic red and white roses, which also formed

the logo for the annual ‘Stampex’ exhibition,

Islington) and ‘GB Collectors’ on the same

issue, with the repeated assertion ‘Richard III

usurped his [Edward V’s] throne and proba-

bly ordered his murder’.

At least the texts printed in the various

Royal Mail packs and FDCs proved more

amenable. The preview (Feb 2008) booklets

had promised a ‘team of experts’ to ‘guide

you through the troubled times’ where ‘The

Houses of York and Lancaster were continu-

ally at war’. These experts were headed by

historian Bettany Hughes (more famous for

14

her work on classical Greece and Rome,

though she did present Channel 4 TV’s

‘Seven Ages of Britain’ – AV Library 2004),

with, for the main presentation pack, Mike

Loades on armour and weaponry. Unfortu-

nately the necessary constraints of limited

space led to over-simplification. The ‘Wars of

the Roses’ (with more unavoidable reference

to the floral symbols) was dealt with in 140

words, and rather more were devoted to the

section headed ‘The 100 Years War’. The

‘potted biographies’ were also minimal. Un-

der ‘Edward V’ we read that Richard ‘ordered

the princes to the Tower of London ‘for their

own protection’. Within less than three

months [he] had the boys declared illegiti-

mate and himself proclaimed king. The Princ-

es in the Tower were never seen again.’ Rich-

ard’s own entry stresses that ‘he was a widely

respected figure of great influence’ but ‘he

used that position on Edward’s death to take

the throne’, and introduces the marvellously

ambiguous phrase ‘Once the little princes

were dealt with, Richard faced a further chal-

lenge’.

‘The Age of Lancaster and York’ stamps

also included the four-stamp ‘miniature sheet’

of Owain Glyn Dwr, Agincourt, Caxton and

the Battle of Tewkesbury, which unfortunate-

ly has to be added to the list of inaccuracies

perpetrated by this latest issue. The Victorian

engraving used for the 78p stamp originates

from an 1870s edition of a pictorial History of

England and, although captioned

‘Tewkesbury’ there, is clearly derived from

the fifteenth-century Ghent MS illumination

of the Battle of Barnet.

For the official First Day Covers featuring

a fifteenth-century MS illumination of Rich-

mond Castle, the text and biographies were

further abbreviated, from an average of 75

words for the Yorkist kings, to 50.

The limited edition ‘cachet covers’,

adorned with the heraldic Royal Arms and

calligraphy, mainly dealt with the history of

Westminster Hall, but the biographies, this

time attributed to Jim Davies, could well

demonstrate that often quoted (mistaken) as-

sertion that ‘All we know of Shakespeare’s

life could be written on a postage stamp,’ as

that of Richard would certainly fit on the

commemorative example. It runs, in full:

‘The hunchback and limp are probably latter-

day fabrications etched forever by the pen of

Shakespeare. Richard died fighting bravely

against the Lancastrian forces of Henry Tudor

in the Battle of Bosworth. He was the last of

the Plantagenet line and the last king to die in

battle.’

1 Founder and member of the British Royal

Portraits Stamp Group. Details from the Hon.

Treasurer, Allan Rendle, 23 More Close, St

Paul’s Court, London W14 9BN allanren-

dle@hotmail.com

From Annette Morgan, New Zealand

Stamp Magazine, April 2008, Letter of the

Month, by Graham Knight of Birmingham,

given the large heading ‘Bare-faced cheek of

commemorative sheets’.

‘With collectors already complaining in

their droves about Royal Mail’s greedy out-

pourings, its latest money-spinner is the best

yet, breathtaking in its bare-faced cheek and

arrogance. By offering its own version of

business customised sheets, the organisation

expects collectors to pay £13.50 for £3.40

worth of stamps which will never be used!

Not that we are surprised. After all, Royal

Mail recently stooped to the level of issuing a

stamp to commemorate Richard III, a vicious

thug responsible for the brutal murders of one

of his brothers, his two nephews and probably

his own wife.’

[Editors: the Society’s secretary, Jane Trump,

promptly wrote a letter to Stamp Magazine in

reply to this comment.]

From Pat Joseph

Discovering Kings and Queens, by D.E.

Wickham (Shire Books 1994)

The widely held opinion that Richard III was

a monstrous tyrant, deformed and a murderer,

is based on Shakespeare’s play, a political

work written during the reign of Elizabeth I.

Richard had been overthrown by Elizabeth’s

grandfather, the usurper Henry Tudor, and the

play was based on books written by Henry’s

supporters. It is known that Richard had been

extremely popular as Duke of Gloucester and

was greatly mourned at his death, particularly

in the North. He had been made king by ac-

15

clamation, whereas for Henry VII to be safely

enthroned the Princes in the Tower had to be

dead. It is arguments like these that lead many

people to see Richard III as the victim of a

remarkably successful Tudor campaign to

blacken his reputation.

... In the same year [1483] Richard stayed

at the Angel Inn in the High Street at Gran-

tham, Lincolnshire. Despite late eighteenth-

century additions and a new name, the Angel

and Royal Hotel, part of the building is four-

teenth-century, which makes it one of the

oldest inns in England. It is even said that

King John held court there in 1213. Its fif-

teenth-century stone front faces the market

square and a celebrated oriel window springs

from an angel corbel. The ‘King’s Room’ is

still pointed out, for Richard signed the Duke

of Buckingham’s death warrant here on 19th

October 1483.

... Ambien Farm, south of Market Bos-

worth, was the centre of the battle and one

may see King Richard’s Well, near which he

is said to have died. The battle ranged over

the slopes of Ambien Hill and, in the church

at Sutton Cheney, a brass plate has been

erected by the Richard III Society, a group

dedicated to clearing his name.

From Fiona Clark

Scottish Sunday Mail Magazine, 21 April

2008. ‘Supergrass’ ABC Glasgow.

‘Apart from opener Diamond Hoo Ha

Man, the band’s new material failed to cap-

ture the crowd’s imagination. … But during

old favourites … the crowd fed off frontman

Gaz Coombes’ energetic delivery. Yet it was

Richard III that stole the show.’

From Paul Moorhead, Sue and Dave Wells

Cartoon in the Daily Mail on 1 May. It de-

picts a typical horse-racing trackside scene

with the bookmaker and his list of runners

and riders on the chalkboard, and his assistant

relaying a phone call from a prospective

‘punter’, saying: ‘Richard III is on the line.

He wants to put his kingdom on Mr Frittata in

the third race”.

D uring a recent visit to Bruges, we decided to try to look beyond the obvious (and well

loved) sights to find lesser known places of interest. As a result, we found ourselves out-

side the English Convent at 2 p.m. on a very quiet April afternoon wondering if we were in the

right place. It is situated very close to the windmills that overlook the embankment to the main

road and is in a residential area. There was no-one else around and the wonderfully domed

church seemed to have no entrance on the street. Moving along, almost whispering for fear of

disturbing the amazing calm, we found a small door in the wall with a notice board that con-

firmed that we were, indeed, in the right place and that the Convent was open to visitors at that

time.

We tentatively opened the door to find ourselves in a small courtyard. Another door had a

notice asking visitors to ring and enter. It led us into a small entrance hall. There being no imme-

diate response, we were debating what to do next when another couple arrived and almost imme-

diately a small hatch in the wall opened and a nun popped her head through. Now, as this was a

convent, we should have expected this but somehow we didn’t and the feeling that we had

stepped into another time-zone or dimension in space (yes, we are Trekkies) grew stronger.

The other couple spoke to her in Dutch and then we asked if we could see the Church. A

smiling yes and a few moments later another nun opened a gate in a grilled archway leading to

the interior.

A Visit to Bruges

16

Sister Francine was a charming French

lady with a good awareness of story telling

and a twinkle in her eye matched by a love-

ly sense of humour. She asked the Dutch

couple if it was OK to conduct the tour in

English although she could also speak

Dutch if necessary. They were fine about

English only. It is at times like these that the

general acceptance of English as a universal

language comes to the fore. We could never

imagine her asking us if it was OK to speak

only Dutch.

She then gave us a brief history of the

Convent. At the time of the Reformation,

many English nuns fled to the continent and

a large number found their way to the mon-

astery of St Ursula in Louvain.

In 1609, because of the continuing in-

flux, it became necessary to found an Eng-

lish monastery in that town. This was the

monastery of St Monica. By the late 1620s

the foundation was seriously overcrowded

and the decision was made to find another

site. In 1629, in Bruges, they founded the

Priory of Our Lady of Nazareth, now known

as the ‘English Convent’.

The present domed church was built in the 1730s in the baroque style. For many years its

domed appearance was unique to the region. The Sisters established a community school and

this led the site to escape the worst consequence of French rule during most of the eighteenth

century.

However, the community has seen troubled times, no more so than during the French Revo-

lution when, in 1794, they were forced to flee. Most of the nuns obtained a passage to England

on a merchant ship designed for transporting grain and after a dreadful six-day crossing, they

disembarked in London. After some uncertain times, they were finally offered the house of a

recently deceased Sister and settled in Hengrave Hall in Suffolk. Following the Treaty of Ami-

ens in 1802, the Sisters were able to return safely to Bruges and daily life in the convent was re-

established.

During these troubled times, the Prioress (1766 – 1807) was Mother Mary Augustina More,

an eighth generation descendant of Sir Thomas More. She brought with her a contemporary

portrait of Sir Thomas which still hangs in the church. Exceptionally, having explained our

interest to a rather bemused Sister Francine, we were allowed to take a photograph (no flash) as

no postcards were available.

Our visit was on the last day of our trip to Bruges and was a fitting conclusion with a sur-

prising Ricardian connection. Sue and Dave Wells

17

’Tis the Season for Shakespeare and Richard III It looks as if 2008, and going into 2009, is going to be a busy season for Shakespeare’s plays and

Richard III in particular. On the wider scene, the RSC staged Shakespeare’s history plays at the

Roundhouse during the year. These turned into: Richard II; John of Gaunt; Henry IV; Henry V;

Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou; Edward IV and of course Richard III.

It also appears that the BBC may be spending a lot of its budget over the next two years in

producing a run of Shakespeare’s plays, However, these will probably be the most popular ones

which will no doubt include Richard III.

Going further afield there are two festivals which will be staging Shakespeare’s Richard III.

Ludlow Festival

The first is being staged in the open air at Ludlow Castle in Shropshire in July. As part of the

performance the organisers have programmed a discussion on Richard III and our Chairman, Dr

Phil Stone, has accepted an invitation to participate.

Dates

June – Saturday 21: Monday 23 to Saturday 28: Monday 30

July – Monday 1 to Saturday 5

Our Chairman will be speaking on Thursday 3 July at two sessions to be held at the Feathers Ho-

tel. The discussion is entitled ‘Richard III – a Bloody Tyrant’.

For further information and booking details see www.ludlowfestival.co.uk

Stamford Shakespeare Company

The second staging of Richard III is by The Stamford Shakespeare Company. This is another

out-door event, this time at the Rutland Open Air Theatre at Tolethorne Hall, Little Casterton,

Stamford, Lincolnshire.

Dates

July Tuesday 8 to Saturday 12 and Monday 21 to Saturday 26

August Monday 11 to Saturday 16 and Monday 25 to Saturday 30

(Wind in the Willows and Romeo and Juliet will be staged on the other dates.)

Prices

Monday/Tuesday £11.00: Wednesday/Thursday £12.00: Friday £14.00: Saturday £16.00

Box Office 01780 756133 or 763203 or Online www.stamfordshakespeare.co.uk

Richard Van Allen

Memory and Commemoration in Medieval England

Harlaxton 15-18 July 2008 The Harlaxton Symposium is an interdisciplinary gathering of academics, students and enthusi-

asts which meets annually to celebrate medieval history, art, literature and architecture through a

programme of papers selected around a chosen theme.

The Symposium, which began in 1984, was the brain-child of Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig, Lady

Wedgwood, and the host of the four-day conference has always been Harlaxton College in Lin-

colnshire, a delightful Victorian Baroque mansion which is now the British campus of the Uni-

versity of Evansville, Indiana.

Harlaxton has long been able to boast a strong participation by international scholars from

educational establishments as far afield as America and Australia. In recent years, the profile of

the conference has increased, and the high standard of papers delivered – as well as the varied

News and Reviews

18

programme which always includes a conference dinner and an outing – creates a forum for

friendly intellectual debate which attracts people back to Harlaxton year after year.

This special symposium has two objectives: to celebrate the first quarter century of Harlaxton

symposia and, secondly, to explore how people and events were commemorated or memorialised

in medieval England. Invited speakers (including Professor Joel Rosenthal and Professor Derek

Pearsall) will reflect on how research and publication in their own field has developed over the

last twenty-five years. There will also be papers which consider the different forms that medieval

commemoration might take, and the ways in which memory was formalised: this might be in

glass windows, tomb inscriptions, naming patterns, books of hours, poems, chantry or college

foundations, chronicles, pageants and processions. We hope to be able to organise a trip to see

the chapel at Haddon Hall with its medieval glass, wall paintings and alabaster altar retable.

For further information see the web-site www.harlaxton.org.uk/2008.htm or contact:

Caroline Barron (c.barron@rhul.ac.uk)

Clive Burgess (c.burgess@rhul.ac.uk)

St Mary’s Barnard Castle Appeal Richard III was a particular benefactor of St Mary’s, Barnard

Castle, after he acquired the Lordship of the town in 1474 upon

his marriage to Anne Neville. Richard made a generous grant of

£40 to enable improvements in the church – the height of the

nave was raised with a new clerestory added, bringing light and

space into the church, the north and south aisles were widened,

and a new porch added, as well as a new chancel arch, complete

with Yorkist roses and sculpted heads of Richard and his broth-

er Edward IV.

Still today there are evident signs of Richard’s interest and

concern for the church. A carving of Richard’s boar badge can

still be seen by the exterior east window of the south transept,

and in the north transept close by the font is a fourteenth-

century carved sculpture of St Anthony, supported by rampant

boars. The sculpted portrait heads of Edward IV and Richard still grace the chancel arch over the

nave. Now in the twenty-first century St Mary’s invites Ricardians to support a £½ million ap-

peal. Envisioned are improvements that echo Richard’s previous alterations:

More space - a new organ has been situated at the west end of the church, freeing the south tran-

sept for the creation of a labyrinth and display space, that will speak of the church’s many histori-

cal links, including those with Richard III.

More light - as Richard’s clerestory brought new light to St Mary’s, so the south transept win-

dow will be brought to light for the first time in fifty years and a new lighting scheme created for

the church

A greater welcome - a new porch was created in Richard’s time; in the twenty-first century St

Mary’s will be able to enable access to St Margaret’s Chapel for private prayer, and offer hospi-

tality with the creation of a servery in the new space at the west end of the church.

Richard wrote:

‘…to the Receivor of oure lordshippe of Barnardes Castelle … Forasmoche as we of oure

grace especialle have yevene and graunted towardes the building of the Churche of oure

blissed lady within oure said lordshippe the summe of xl li [£40]. We therefore wolle and

charge you that of thissues and Revenues commyng and growing of the same our lor-

shippe that shalbe due unto us at the Feste of seint Martyn in yeme next commyng, ye con-

tent and pay unto the Wardeyns of the said Churche the summe of xx li, and at the same

Fest in the yere then folowing othere xx li without delaye.’

19

You can give: through the church web site www.stmarysbarnardcastle.org.uk or by sending a

cheque or postal order to The Friends of St Mary’s Treasurer (Mr Peter Wise), 5 Mayfield, Bar-

nard Castle, DL12 8EA. Cheques should be made payable to The Friends of St Mary’s. If you

pay Income Tax and/or Capital Gains Tax, do please ask the Treasurer for a Gift Aid form.

Teach life skills – not 1066 Here we go again, someone else wanting to delete history from schools curricula. This time,

however, it is the General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

Dr Mary Bousted, addressing the recent ATL conference in Torquay, said that she believed

that teaching children ‘lifeskills’ was far more important than forcing them to memorise facts

such as the date of the Battle of Hastings. Dr Bousted demanded the abolition of most of the na-

tional curriculum and associated tests. She admitted that traditionalists would be annoyed by any

moves to reduce ‘rote learning’ but insisted that this had to be done to stop more children being

turned off education at an early age. Dr Bousted told the conference that the national curriculum

should be far more focused on the development of life skills and ways of working than whether

or not we teach the Battle of Hastings. However, when asked if a slimmed-down body of

knowledge should indeed include the fact that William the Conqueror invaded in 1066, she said

that she would have no argument against 1066 being included.

Does this mean that Dr Bousted is thinking about the teaching of ‘selective history’? This

would seem to have smack of censorship about it. Is this not the way that some of the more re-

strictive political regimes operate?

Regarding Dr Bousted’s comments about putting children off learning history, how many of

us were turned on to history as children, by history being well taught in school? It is interesting

to note the number of television programmes, films and books for children that centre on fantasy

and adventure themes when in fact history is one of the greatest adventures.

Richard Van Allen

A New Book about Richard III A new book about Richard III is always welcome when it

promises a major reassessment of that king’s reign, and

Annette Carson’s Richard III: The Maligned King lives up

to its title. An analysis of the specific period 1483 to 1485,

the book looks set to challenge many comfort zones.

Annette Carson has been a Society member for over ten

years, but her original fascination with Richard III dates

from the Laurence Olivier film which sparked animated

discussions in history classes at school. Over the ensuing

years the Great Debate remained an abiding topic of read-

ing and reflection; but she dates the start of more intensive

research from the advent of the internet, when source mate-

rial became freely available for the first time on websites.

In recent years she feels there is a tendency for Rich-

ard’s reputation to come increasingly under attack, despite

no new evidence emerging to justify this trend. Almost eve-

ry new book seems to trot out the old, tired assumptions,

whether by historians or popular writers; and every opin-

ionated TV history expert follows suit.

Given that so much scholarly work has been done, bringing to light alternative readings and

conclusions, Annette wanted to do full justice to specific topics thrown up by such work rather

Annette Carson

20

than opt for a broader but shallower approach. Hence, although written in narrative form – and

320 pages long – the book concentrates purely on Richard’s reign.

For example: what caused the death of Edward IV? What was being plotted in Brittany in the

lead-up to the October rebellion, and what was the real nature of the negotiations for Elizabeth of

York to marry Henry Tudor? Why did Buckingham betray his king? Did Elizabeth Woodville

dabble in witchcraft? What might have happened to Edward V and his brother? What do we real-

ly know about Those Bones? And what were Richard’s actual intentions towards his niece?

Ricardians will be interested to know that in the process of tracking the activities of Henry

Tudor during 1483–1485, Annette uncovered a number of revealing facts which historians of the

first Tudor king prefer to gloss over.

The publishers, The History Press, are the new parent company that recently bought out Sut-

ton Publishing along with imprints like Tempus, Pitkin, etc. More information can be found on

their website www.thehistorypress.co.uk.

RICHARD III: THE MALIGNED KING

Annette Carson

The History Press, June/July 2008, hbk, 320 pp., 27 colour plates, £20

A rejection of traditional assumptions about King Richard III

and a major reassessment of what really happened

when he came to the throne of England

Special Offer POST-FREE in UK to Richard III Society members

Please quote membership number to sales@thehistorypress.co.uk

Or call 01453 883300

21

Meet the Historian: An interview with Dr Ian Mortimer

I an Mortimer was born in Kent, won a

scholarship to Eastbourne College in Sus-

sex, and later read for degrees in history and

archive studies at the universities of Exeter

and London (UCL). For the period 1991 to

2003 he worked for a variety of archive and

historical research organisations, including

the Devon Record Office, the Royal Commis-

sion on Historical Manuscripts and the uni-

versities of Exeter and Reading. He has BA,

MA and PhD degrees in history, and is both a

qualified archivist and a Fellow of the Royal

Historical Society. Awarded the Alexander

Prize by the Royal Historical Society in 2004,

he was made an Honorary Research Fellow at

Exeter shortly afterwards, and now lives on

the edge of Dartmoor with his wife and their

three children.

When and how did your interest in history

develop?

When? In infancy. I grew up in a house

which, although a suburban semi-detached,

contained a number of relics of our family

over the previous two centuries. For example:

the ‘Bishop’s Throne’ – a Windsor chair giv-

en to the family by a bishop of Exeter in the

nineteenth century. Or a painting of the vil-

lage where we lived in the eighteenth century.

Or engravings of the premises of the family

business, Mortimers’ Cleaning and Dyeing

Works, Plymouth, which we owned and man-

aged from 1773 to 1933. Hence there was this

continual sense of the past – our past – all

around us.

This combination of wonder and familiari-

ty with the past increased when I was taken

on days out. In every cathedral I visited as a

child I played a game of ‘hunt the Mortimer

family coat of arms’. At Wigmore Castle, the

seat of the medieval Mortimer family (which

my father erroneously believed was connect-

ed with us), I found a wonderfully neglected

overgrown ruin. It had a magical atmosphere

like Cair Paravel in the Narnia books. At the

age of eight I completed a school project on

the ‘Mortimers, Nevilles and Woodvilles’. At

twelve I was beginning to find the old DNB

entries on the medieval Mortimers somewhat

lacking and so applied for a British Library

Readers’ Pass in order to further my

knowledge. I was politely but firmly told to

re-apply when I reached twenty-one.

There are, I think two important points

underlying this experience. The first is that a

strong sense of the past and the continuity of

a culture is wound up in family life, and fami-

ly identity. It is surprising how often the his-

tory-educating role of the family is over-

looked, only to be remembered when a ca-

lamitous event takes place which we immedi-

ately know is going to be something we speak

about to our children and grandchildren. The

second is that historical ideas and conclusions

which develop outside the classroom tend to

be much more powerful than those taught

within it. Classroom history is very often his-

tory tied to an academic (or educational)

agenda. It is thus about evidence, analysis of

evidence, and the construction of an argu-

ment; it is not about the past. For my own

part, the very fact that I sympathised from an

early age with medieval characters – the Mor-

timers especially – who had been denigrated

by supposedly scholarly writers gave me a

real sense of the failure of academia to con-

22

nect with reality. Naturally I wanted to do

something about it.

There has been much debate over the past

few years about the role and importance of

history in today’s world; as an historian

and writer how would you justify its rele-

vance?

This is an immense question, with many

different angles. To answer it meaningfully, I

think you have to differentiate between the

types of history there are. Obviously, history

is not synonymous with the past; but nor is it

synonymous with the study of the past either.

Academic history, for example, is the study of

evidence relating to the past – not the study of

the past itself. Moreover, academic history

has particular constraints on its form – it must

eschew drama and emotion, for example,

even when describing historical events which

are essentially dramatic (e.g. a battle) or emo-

tional (a love affair). Popular history, on the

other hand, might be little more than fine sto-

ry-telling (although no one should underesti-

mate the difficulty of telling a story well).

The values and roles of these two equally

demanding disciplines are very different. The

prime importance of academic history is in

education – not just of historians but of civil

servants and managers – for the very assimi-

lation of historical information and the need

to produce an argument based on the evidence

available is a process which society depends

on in millions of social interactions every

day. The value of popular history is of a dif-

ferent nature. It allows us a view of society

over time. It brings us together in a shared

understanding of some aspect of the past – be

that a historical individual or a cause or an

identity. It gives us a sense of our place in

time, as well as our place in the world.

What I do think is common to both popu-

lar and academic history is the need for the

discipline to be rooted in the wider concerns

of society in order to have meaning. A histori-

an who works out the exact causes of the

Hundred Years War and mutters the truth

privately to himself in a quiet corner might as

well be wrong. Someone who works out the

precise evolution of the bus ticket might as

well be talking to himself. You cannot ‘do’

history for the sake of history. If history has

social meaning – if society is to embrace his-

tory as a form of self-knowledge – then what

we write about the past must be rooted in the

wider concerns of society, not in the relics

and documents which just happen to have

survived.

As an academic historian, how do you view

the work of organisations such as the Rich-

ard III Society, particularly in terms of

what they contribute to historical research

and raising the popular profile of our past? Let me state here quite clearly: I AM NOT

AN ACADEMIC! I do not teach. I do not

undertake research along lines dictated or

suggested by anyone else. I do not feel

obliged to follow any academic conventions

such as eschewing drama and emotion in my

writing. Indeed, I see it as a complement to

my writing when members of the public say

my book ‘reads like a novel’. Say the same

thing to an academic and it is tantamount to

saying his or her scholarship cannot be relied

upon any more than fiction.

I see myself as a writer who occasionally

brings scholarly research skills to bear on

difficult subjects. This sometimes gives my

books and articles an academic appearance.

Such non-academic contributions do have an

impact on academic history (such as my argu-

ment that the information underpinning the

announcement of the death of Edward II is

false, or that Richard II was definitely mur-

dered by his cousin’s order). But much of my

work is structured for the sake of drama, or

enjoyment, or the understanding of a charac-

ter or a situation.

I see the Richard III Society in much the

same role. Its great strength – and I do mean

great strength – is its ability to combine

scholarship and enjoyment, and to rise above

the cloying weight of academic history in the

wake of Geoffrey Elton. It can draw upon

members with scholarly skills to answer diffi-

cult questions with authority. It can encourage

academics to consider new and interesting

views on the past. But above all else it is in-

terested in promoting history as an enjoyable

and inspirational intellectual activity.

Do you have a particular approach when

23

writing and researching historical biog-

raphies? Sort of – but I’m not sure how interesting

it is. Researching and writing is not a specta-

tor sport; few historians live interesting lives.

I have written on my website about how I

write about a battle – and how, with regard to

the actual writing of a battle, a bottle of whis-

ky is as important a resource as the chronicles

and secondary works one draws upon for

facts. Otherwise everything I do is pretty pre-

dictable. I spend a week or two at the Nation-

al Archives each year photographing all the

manuscript material I might need and copying

it on to a laptop. Digital cameras are probably

the biggest methodological change in the last

ten years, more important even than the ex-

pansion of the Internet. The day the British

Library allows scholars to use digital cameras

as freely as the National Archives does, I will

rejoice.

You have written about Roger Mortimer,

Edward III, and Henry IV, are currently

writing about Henry V and researching

Richard, Duke of York: the obvious ques-

tion to ask is - will this lead you to Richard

III? I hope that in four or five years’ time I

will be writing a book on Richard III, and that

it will be the sixth volume in my sequence of

biographies of important medieval characters.

I think of them collectively as a ‘biographical

history of medieval England 1300-1485’, for I

see a direct connection between Roger Morti-

mer’s successful challenge to royal authority

in 1327 (book one), Edward III’s reassertion

of strong kingship (book two), the power

struggle of 1397-1400 and the rebellions

against Henry IV (book three), the events of

1415 (book four) and the origins of the Wars

of the Roses (book five). Of course the events

of Richard III’s life fit into this pattern, with

meaning as well as resonance. However, I

would be rash to say yes for certain – four or

five years is a long time, and writing a whole

book about 1415 at the moment makes me

look at the events of 1485 as being far, far in

the future.

Do you see Richard III as being a challeng-

ing, and perhaps deserving, subject of your

sympathetic biography approach? Yes, and yes, without a shadow of a doubt

in either respect. Anyone writing about Rich-

ard has to contend with a massive amount of

existing literature. The sheer weight of it is

remarkable, considering that Richard’s reign

was the shortest of any crowned king of Eng-

land. Then there is the problem of the princes

in the Tower. Regardless of what you think

may have happened, something did happen

and we don’t know exactly what. But whatev-

er it was, it was important. Thus the ‘hidden

history’ of this period means that there are

untouched, undiscussed pitfalls for any biog-

rapher of Richard. For unlike an academic

historian, who can simply say ‘we have no

evidence’ a biographer cannot simply say we

do not know what happened to Edward and

Richard. A historical biographer has to paint a

coherent and complete picture of his subject,

so to ignore the problem of the princes is to

ignore something of massive importance to

the king’s life (whether he was guilty of or-

dering their murder or innocent). I have to say

I am absolutely dreading that decision. Some-

body is going to want to skewer me, either

way.

As for whether he deserves a sympathetic

portrait, surely every historical person does? I

think the end of my answer to the first ques-

tion you asked is relevant here: everyone –

every historical character – has their own

point of view. When people tell me I am far

too kind to Henry IV in The Fears of Henry

IV I tell them that they are missing the point: I

did not set out to judge the man as good or

bad, guilty or innocent. The whole purpose of

my biography was to understand the man, as

far as possible, from his own point of view.

No one had ever done that before (athough

plenty of peple had written sympathetically

about Richard II, in the wake of Shake-

speare). No doubt Henry himself would have

been even more fervent in explaining why he

did what he did – and his subjective position

is a valid point of view too. In my philosophy

of history the judgments by partially informed

students of the past living hundreds of years

after the events are meaningless. So what if

we denigrate Edward III and Henry V as war-

24

mongers? So what if we play up the fact that

they were both intelligent, considerate men

who secured domestic peace for England?

What is valuable and meaningful is to under-

stand how a man faces and deals with the

challenges of his time. In that sense writing

about the two years of Richard III’s reign is

every bit as challenging as writing about the

fifty-year reign of Edward III, and one needs

to be just as slow to judge and as eager to

understand the character, whether you think

he was a malevolent murderer or a much-

maligned scapegoat.

Ian’s published work of interest to members

includes The Greatest Traitor: the life of Sir

Roger Mortimer (2003), The Perfect King:

the life of Edward III (2006) and The Fears of

Henry IV, (2007 – paperback due out in June

this year). The Time-traveller's Guide to Me-

dieval England: A Handbook for Visitors to

the Fourteenth Century is due to be published

in October. For more information visit

www.ianmortimer.com, where a fuller ver-

sion of this interview can also be found.

Ian was interviewed by John Saunders of

the Bulletin Editorial Team. In the autumn

issue we will publish an article by Ian on the

Lancastrian claim to the throne.

New Members UK 1 January – 31 March 2008

Gail Bodily, Daventry

Patricia Buckley, Tunbridge Wells

Elizabeth Coleman, Kettering

Maria, Michael & Stephen Croft, Derby

Patricia Dale, Orford

Susan Greenwood, Norwich

Elizabeth Hitchin, Halifax

Emma Holland, Greenwich

Alison Holmes, Catterick

John Jackson, Stratford-upon-Avon

Steve Morris, Bristol

William Mortimer, Minehead

Richard & Mrs SR Painter, Guildford

Leah Power, Pwllheli

David Rich, Gorleston

Karen Sadler, Bristol

David Santiuste, Edinburgh

David Teale, Bolton

Ashley Tucker, Leeds

Doreen Ward, Oldham

Joe Young, London

Overseas 1 January – 31 March 2008

Donald Thompson, France Ayako Otsuka, Japan

US Branch 1 January – 31 March 2008

Frederick Avansino, California

Ali Botein-Furrevig, New Jersey

Constance Bray, Georgia

Jeryl H. Cannon, Florida

Beverly Case, California

Michele Klocke Datta, Florida

Geraldine Diaz, Indiana

Mark Eastin, Georgia

Terry and Laurie Goodell, Maryland

Elizabeth Henning, Missouri

Cheryl Hoffman-Bray, Massachusetts

Samuel Hough, Rhode Island

Stanley & Minnie Ingalls, California

Gail Malone, New York

Patricia A. Nace, Pennsylvania

Virginia B. Nihart, Colorado

Emily S. Palmer, Colorado

Judy Peterson, New York

Sean Pickett, Massachusetts

Sharon R. Powell, Texas

Ginney Pumphrey, Arkansas

Sarah Ross-Benjamin, Connecticut

Joyce Sleczkowski, Florida

John Sowerby, Florida

Ruth Ann Spencer, Massachusetts

25

T he avoidance of hindsight and a strong

dose of commonsense are essential for

this investigation both of the protectorship

and the fate of the princes. The protectorship

introduces us to all the main characters, and

how they acted then can suggest how they

might have acted later. Only contemporary

sources for this narrative have been used: the

far from satisfactory Crowland Chronicle and

Mancini; the reliable Simon Stallworth and

the official records of the city of London.

This account leapfrogs through events to pick

out what seem to be the key points.

The matter of who in London communi-

cated with Gloucester in the North is under-

studied. Hastings’ role in this should be ques-

tioned as well as that of Buckingham, and

other persons proposed. The complete control

by the Woodvilles of the council, the king and

the Tower was doubted by no one. But what

we know of the personalities and abilities of

Rivers and Dorset do not lead us to judge

them competent and sensible men. All the

characters in this story wanted to achieve a

position of influence next to the new king and

this dominated their actions.

A meeting was scheduled at the prosper-

ous borough of Northampton between

Gloucester and the king. When Gloucester

arrived he found the king had been taken on

to the small staging-post of Stony Stratford. It

can be suggested that Rivers wished to play

down the meeting: only the Woodvilles

should be seen in control of the new king in a

town of any importance. Rivers may have

thought of Richard as someone easily side-

lined: the faithful brother who did as he was

told. At some point Rivers told his lieutenants

at Stony Stratford that all was well and

Gloucester only had 300 men; would he not

have counted his brother-in-law Buckingham

as in the Woodville camp? At Stony Stratford

Richard assumed control, made arrests and

dismissed the force of 2000 men under Riv-

ers’ control.

At the news of Gloucester’s success, the

Woodvilles in London panicked and fled to

sanctuary – but only after failing to raise a

new army. Flight indicated guilt in the fif-

teenth century, as it usually does now.

Gloucester’s letters calmed London. The re-

ception of the king was celebrated in the usu-

al way by the city and he was lodged in the

place of the bishop of London. Parliament

Proceedings of the Triennial Conference 2008: Part 1: Perspective

The Protectorship of Richard of

Gloucester: the prelude to a murder?

ANNE F. SUTTON

The Society will publish abbreviated versions of the talks given at the triennial conference held at

the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester in April this year. Part 1 covers the two opening pa-

pers presented under the overall title of Perspective and delivered by Anne Sutton and Livia

Visser-Fuchs. In the autumn issue we will publish the three papers covering the Suspects – the

dukes of Buckingham and Norfolk, Henry Tudor and his adherents and Richard of Gloucester.

26

was summoned for 25 June and the corona-

tion set for 22 June. Mancini’s assertion that

Gloucester tried to secure the execution of

Rivers and co at this stage is inherently un-

likely for he needed to conciliate the king and

stabilise the administration, not upset every-

one. Men like Hastings were confirmed in

their posts, and oaths of fealty to the king

were taken on 19 May at the Tower by all the

lords present and read to the common council

of London on 21 May. The Mowbray inher-

itance undoubtedly came up for discussion

but should not be seen as ominous: a fairer

division of the estate could be made now Ed-

ward IV and Anne Mowbray were dead, and

the duke of York provided with another en-

dowment.

Only on 10 June does the quiet break,

though this would only have been known to a

few of Richard’s circle. He wrote to the North

for men to oppose the Woodvilles’ plots. But

it was not they who were dealt with on 13

June, but rather Hastings, Morton, Rotherham

and Stanley. John Forster, official of the

queen and relative of Morton, was a key fig-

ure. Oliver King, also arrested, was another

old associate of Morton. Was Morton not

Hastings the key figure in this plot? Was

there a whole series of plots hiding within

each other and what part did the wife of Stan-

ley play? Her objective was to bring her son,

Henry Tudor, home and negotiations with

Edward IV had reached a hopeful stage with a

marriage between Henry and one of Edward’s

daughters mooted. She then had to turn to

Buckingham and Gloucester to further her

scheme, and the marriage of her son became

an important item of barter with the Wood-

villes from the moment that they were super-

seded by Gloucester as the controllers of the

new king. She was to be involved in a plot to

release the princes immediately after Rich-

ard’s accession with the support of an army

led by her son, the prospective husband of

their sister.

On 16 June the duke of York was handed

over by his mother and apparently no one

concerned suspected any designs by Glouces-

ter on the throne; parliament and the corona-

tion were postponed to give Gloucester over

four months to arrange a stable government.

The day after, however, the cancellations of

the elections of MPs were stopped: Richard

had decided he needed such an assembly to

acclaim him as king. Only now did he decide

that he had a clear field and he could take the

throne. He now canvassed support and took

advice on how Edward IV had achieved his

acclamation. The opinion of the city and its

merchants was no doubt reflected in that of

Mayor Shaa and his brother Ralph of Queens’

College who preached the sermon that an-

nounced the claim of Gloucester based on the

canon law regulations explained by Bishop

Stillington. After the sermon the scenario of

1461 was adopted with public assemblies and

an acclamation. Richard was king.

If Richard’s accession contained the mur-

der of the princes, the scene was set and ma-

chinery in motion. As king Richard could

control the machinery and leave the boys

alive – he had been so slow and careful about

his final decision to take the throne, a similar

carefulness could have characterised his care

of the children. But his taking of the throne

changed the viewpoint of others: Margaret

Beaufort and her allies; the clever Bishop

Morton, once a Lancastrian exile; the ‘odd’

duke of Buckingham, a young man for whom

Edward IV had never found a use, but who

was now ‘every where’; and who else? The

boys were certainly at risk, but from more

than just Richard.

The best guide to sources is the chronolo-

gy by Anne Sutton in The Coronation of

Richard III ed. Sutton and Hammond (1983),

and the best narrative by P.M. Kendall in his

Richard III, using his notes with his text

(1955).

27

W hat did people outside England

‘know’ about the princes, their disap-

pearance, and Richard III’s accession? What

information reached which part of the conti-

nent, and do these strands of information dif-

fer?

There seem to be three groups of

‘informees’: ordinary people, especially those

living along the North Sea coast, who had no

particular interest in politics; the men who

attended the meeting of the Estates General at

Tours in early 1484, who have their own hid-

den agenda; and those writing some time lat-

er.

The first group includes Caspar

Weinreich, a citizen of Danzig of the middle

sort, possibly a trader, a well-informed man

interested in grain prices and the movement

of ships across the Channel or the North Sea.

He wrote a short chonicle of the years 1461 to

1495, and probably had no access to written

sources, but wrote down events as he heard of

them. He says that Richard ‘had himself put

in power and crowned ... he had his brother’s

children killed and the queen put away secret-

ly too’. Another writer, Jan Allertsz, recorder

of Rotterdam from 1455 till his death in 1489,

made extensive notes, mostly original, on

events in his lifetime. His information on

Richard III appears to have reached him soon

after Bosworth. He says, ‘after Edward’s

death he killed two of his brother’s children,

boys, or so he was accused. But anyway, they

were killed and he himself became king, but

he did not rule for long’.

Adriaan de But was a Cistercian monk at

the abbey of Ter Duinen in Flanders, 25 miles

west of Bruges and very much in contact with

that city. Great figures from the outside world

had visited the abbey, including Margaret of

York. De But says, ‘Edward [IV] ... died,

leaving two sons and four daughters by his

queen, Margaret [sic] ... But Richard, Duke of

Gloucester, brother to the deceased king, ar-

rested the children and the queen and behead-

ed some people who opposed him and then

had himself crowned as the undoubted suc-

cessor, and shortly after he departed for Scot-

land’. Niclas Despars, of Bruges, writing in

the early sixteenth century, says, ‘Duke Rich-

ard of Gloucester, dead King Edward’s broth-

er, had himself crowned on 6 May, at Lon-

don, by force. He was the third of that name

and the sixth of the red rose; he took his

brother’s two sons prisoner.’

With these writers must be put the Silesi-

an knight Nicolas von Popplau, the best in-

formed of these sources in that he met Rich-

ard himself in May 1484, and appears to have

liked him. He says, ‘King Richard ... they say

... killed King Edward his brother’s sons, so

that not they, but he was crowned. However,

many people say – and I agree with them –

that they are still alive and are kept in a very

dark cellar’. Thus the actual murder of the

princes seemed much less likely to someone

who had met Richard and talked with him

than to people on distant shores.

The men present at the meeting of the

Estates General at Tours were very different

in their outlook from the men listed above.

Their writings follow their own agenda. Guil-

laume de Rochefort (1433-92) was chancellor

of France, and presided over this meeting,

which had to decide how to rule the country

during the minority of the 13-year-old

Charles VIII; the meeting became a clash

between the partisans of the king’s elder sis-

ter, Anne de Beaujeu, who had been appoint-

ed regent by the dead Louis XI and was sup-

ported by the estates themselves, and the aris-

tocratic party led by Louis d’Orléans, who

Continental Rumours About the

Disappearance of the Princes and

the Accession of Richard III

LIVIA VISSER-FUCHS

28

claimed that Charles was under Anne’s

thumb. De Rochefort, who famously men-

tioned the murder of the princes, was on

Anne’s side, and was rehearsing the general

French idea that the English were always kill-

ing their kings and handing over the crown to

another dynasty. They had done so 26 times,

he said, since William the Conqueror.

Another man present at Tours was

Philippe de Comines. It is important to re-

member that Comines was writing his ac-

count of Richard at a very trying and misera-

ble period of his life, when he had every rea-

son to hate kings in general. His influence

with Louis XI had been waning, and when

Louis died in August 1483 Comines found

himself without any protector. In an attempt

to maintain his influence he sided with Louis

d’Orléans, whose side eventually lost. When

Comines wrote this part of his memoirs six

years later, he had spent some years in prison.

He decided to praise parliamentary govern-

ment, such as prevailed in England, and run

down his old master, Louis XI. For Comines,

there was not a single virtuous and admirable

prince – and Richard III’s actions were also

what one could expect from Englishmen. He

fitted Richard’s story into a section where he

discussed God’s punishment of bad kings. He

says, ‘[Edward IV] died of melancholy be-

cause the French marriage did not materialise.

Edward left two sons, the one prince of

Wales, the other duke of York. The duke of

Gloucester assumed the governance of the

prince, swore an oath of fealty to him and

brought him to London, pretending to plan his

coronation, but actually to bring the other boy

out of sanctuary. In the end, he had the help

of the bishop of Bath, who had been Ed-

ward’s chancellor before he was dismissed

and put into prison; when he was released he

told Gloucester that Edward had loved a lady

and married her – after he had slept with her –

while nobody was present but himself. The

bishop was a man of the court and never re-

vealed this and helped to keep the lady quiet.

... Later Edward fell in love again and married

a widow with two sons, daughter of a knight

called Lord Rivers. The bishop revealed this

to Gloucester and helped him in his evil

plans; he had his two nephews killed and

made himself king; the two daughters were

declared bastards in full parliament ... He had

all the good servants of his dead brother

killed, if he could lay his hands on them ...

His cruelty did not last, for he was prouder

than any king of England had been in a hun-

dred years, and he had the duke of Bucking-

ham killed and kept a large army ready.’

The Norman prelate Thomas Basin had

been a member of an embassy of Richard,

Duke of York to Charles VII, concerning the

marriage of Richard’s son Edward to the

king’s daughter. In 1447 he was elected bish-

op of Lisieux; he was a councillor of Charles

VII of France, then supported Louis XI, then

turned against him and had to leave France;

he died in 1490 at the court of his friend Da-

vid, Bishop of Utrecht. He seems to have ac-

cepted English rule in France as long as it

appeared legitimate and beneficent, and never

had any reason to trust any king of France. He

too was present at Tours in May 1484, and

wrote a detailed account of Richard III’s ac-

cession, which is not very well known, in

1483-4. I think he is the best source for what

was known at the Estates meeting and the

information that circulated among those pre-

sent.

Basin’s words: ‘[Edward] left behind sev-

eral children of both sexes and it would have

been reasonable if the eldest had succeeded

and, because he was a minor, that he would

be ruled by his uncle, the duke of Gloucester,

but as soon as the duke had the children in his

control he showed his true intentions towards

them. Their mother went into sanctuary at

Westminster. To squash all opposition he had

the Lords Rivers and Hastings removed, as

well as several other great men of the king-

dom, and a little later he had himself crowned

in London. To justify his actions he appealed

to an ancient decree and custom by which the

children of the widow of the king, if she had

been married to someone else, could not suc-

ceed to the kingdom even if they had been

born in the kingdom and to the king. In this

case the mother had been married before, and

this husband was still alive when Edward

married her. However, at no time, not when

he married her, or after his coronation, or

while he lived was any rumour ever heard and

29

everybody thought she was the king’s legiti-

mate wife.

‘Thus the duke assured that the crown

came to him, the only brother of the king. He

decided to call together a council in the Tow-

er to hear what people thought about this mat-

ter. Lord Hastings who had been a counsellor

and friend of the late king spoke up freely that

on the faith he owed to God and to the late

king he could never allow such treason. The

duke then had the gates shut and Hastings

beheaded. Hastings’ relatives outside the

Tower clamoured for news and were shown

his head. The bishops of York and Ely, who

were also at the Tower and also refused to

submit, were imprisoned. Two sons of the

queen by her previous husband were also

killed, and the queen, it is said, was kept un-

der strict supervision in a strong place.

‘The sons of Edward were put under

guard in the Tower. A group of about fifty

Londoners conspired together, hoping that if

they started to act the whole city would rise

up, but in reality nobody stirred and four of

them were beheaded. Whether the children

are alive or dead at their uncle’s order is not

certain but the second is most probable, for

with them alive the impostor would never be

safe from rebellion if they lived, considering

how prone the English are to rebellion and

factions.’

The group of men who attended at Tours

overlaps with the authors who wrote long

after the events. Robert Gaguin, in his general

history of France published in 1495, never

mentions Richard III; he regards the English

as perfidious and as a permanent menace; he

knows – like an amazing number of continen-

tal authors – about Clarence’s butt of malm-

sey. He went on an embassy to Henry VII in

1489, but there is never a word about the

princes or the battle of Bosworth. Considering

the great popularity of his book it is important

to realise that this was not a source on Rich-

ard III for later authors. Nor does Erasmus

mention Richard III, but a friend of his, Cor-

nelius of Gouda, an Austin canon like Manci-

ni, published a chronicle called The Division

Chronicle (because it is divided into divi-

sions). Extensive research into his sources has

not revealed much about where he found his

contemporary history; he is said not to have

known much French and did not read Co-

mines, for example. He says that Richard, ‘a

cruel man, ... made great efforts to get control

of the two sons, but they were in sanctuary in

London. He did get them through tricks and

promises, and they were put in the care of the

earl of Buckingham. Some say their uncle

killed them’ – he uses the verb versmachten,

‘to smother’ – ‘to make himself king, others

that the earl of Buckingham put them to

death, hoping to be king himself, because he

had heard a prophecy that a King Henry of

England would be very powerful, and he was

called Henry. Others say that Buckingham

killed only one child and spared the other

who was his godchild. This child, called

Richard, he sent out of the country. He went

to Portugal, then came to King Louis XI of

France and then to Margaret, his aunt ... the

boy was commonly called the White Rose ...

When the two children had disappeared the

duke of Gloucester made himself king ... and

had the earl of Buckingham executed as a

traitor. Buckingham’s heart was cut from his

body and given to be kissed [presumably to

Richard?] ... Many people were displeased

with the violence of this bloodthirsty king.’

Finally, two chroniclers at the Burgundian

court need to be mentioned: Olivier de la

Manche and Jean Molinet; both wrote quite

some time after the event. Olivier, who lived

and wrote from 1488 at Malines, where Mar-

garet of York lived, does not mention Richard

III. Molinet, who died in 1507, was a great

admirer of Margaret of York ‘precious pearl

of England, flower of sweet-smelling beauty,

planted in this land and flourishing gloriously

in the garden of Burgundy’, but had no doubt

that her brother Richard was evil. It would

appear that the section on Richard was insert-

ed in 1486 or 1487 between two sections on

the troubles of Maximilian in 1483. He says

Edward V was 14 years old, and calls the

younger prince George. ‘Richard, pretending

to be planning an invasion of France, gath-

ered money and troops and arrived in London

on 23 June. The queen took her children to

Westminster. The people of Wales and rela-

tives of Edward IV made a great effort to

crown the prince of Wales. The duke of

30

Gloucester prevaricated until the matter sub-

sided. ... he put the princes in the Tower. ...

‘The elder son was sad and downcast,

realising how evil his uncle was; the younger

one was joyful and spirited, good at dancing

and games and he said to his brother, “My

lord, learn to dance!” but his brother said,

“We had better learn to die, for I think we are

not long for this world.” They were prisoners

for about five weeks and then Duke Richard

had then secretly killed, either starved in a

chest or suffocated with cushions. They were

buried in a secret place but later recovered,

after the death of their uncle, and buried with

royal ceremony.’

Buckingham, who ‘came to the Tower

that same day’, is mentioned as a possible

suspect, because he had a claim to the throne,

but there is no word of his rebellion, nor even

of his execution. Richard calls Edward’s eld-

est daughter to court to marry her to the dau-

phin, but makes her pregnant and has a child

by her. Messages were stuck on the doors of

churches accusing him of having killed his

wife because she was ugly. And he had his

mother come before the council and state

publicly that of her three sons only Richard

was legitimate, the others being sons of Fran-

ciscan friars.

In conclusion, three things must be said.

First, it is essential to report these foreign

rumours in full, to put them in perspective.

Second, the people in England were no better

informed than those in the Low Countries,

and what was being said was similar on both

sides of the Channel. Third, the story of the

murdered princes was too good to be forgot-

ten. As with the media today, a nice bloody

story is not to be sneezed at. Once such a tale

is started, it will live, probably, for ever,

whatever we try to do about it: it becomes ‘a

convenient truth’ to many people.

31

I n my new book, Richard III: The Ma-

ligned King, one of my assertions relates

to Richard’s fatal underestimation of just how

much of a threat was posed by Henry Tudor.1

Evidence clearly indicates that Tudor, his

family and their advisers, notably his mother

Lady Margaret Beaufort and her aide Bishop

John Morton, demonstrated the skills of con-

summate politicians throughout 1483-85,

presenting a different face and a different

argument in each new situation they encoun-

tered. For example, the catalyst that aroused

the exiled Tudor’s hopes of gaining power

and status after the death of Edward IV was

undoubtedly the arrival of Sir Edward Wood-

ville to join him in Brittany in May 1483,

with two ships and vast amounts of treasure.

The seafaring Sir Edward had one objec-

tive in his sights: to ensure the coronation of

his nephew, Edward V, as a puppet child-king

under the control of the dowager queen’s

Woodville family. Such an outcome was

scarcely of personal benefit to Henry Tudor,

yet his advisers evidently counselled him as

to the advantages to be gained from appearing

to support the Woodville cause, especially

since one of its leaders had landed on his

doorstep replete with ships and money.

As events moved on in England during the

months of June, July and August, with the

boy Edward V now deposed and replaced by

Richard III, the Woodvilles’ initial objective

had to change. It metamorphosed into a

south-western uprising in favour of Edward

V’s restoration. At its root were disgruntled

office-holders of the now-defunct Woodville-

dominated régime that formerly held sway

under the late Edward IV. Margaret Beaufort

and her family were almost certainly involved

in this insurgency, as historians including

Rosemary Horrox agree.2 Why should this be,

if not because Margaret’s party had thrown in

its lot with the Woodvilles?

Nowadays we know all about Henry Tu-

dor joining up with Sir Edward Woodville,

although the myth-makers of the subsequent

Tudor era had good reason to ensure Sir Ed-

ward’s pivotal role was eliminated from their

version of history. By the end of August 1483

the new Woodville-Tudor partners had per-

suaded their host, Francis II, Duke of Britta-

ny, to equip an invasion fleet on their behalf.

Reports indicate that it was already being

prepared in the first half of September.3 No

contemporaneous document puts Edward V’s

disappearance earlier than this; the Crowland

Chronicle and Polydore Vergil’s Anglica His-

toria put it later. Obviously, therefore, the

cause which the duke believed he was sup-

porting was the restoration of the deposed –

but living – boy-king. This timeline is rein-

forced by the duke of Buckingham’s spell at

the helm of the rebellion in the first half of

September, to be replaced by Henry Tudor

only after rumours were circulated that Ed-

ward V was dead.4

This, then, was the first subterfuge used

by the Tudors: ostensibly helping to restore

Edward V. I say ‘ostensibly’ because it is

scarcely believable that, if successful, they

had any intention of peaceably allowing

young Edward to occupy the throne. The

Woodvilles, for their part, would have regard-

ed the recruitment of the Tudor family, espe-

The Man Himself HOW RICHARD WAS

OUTMANOEUVRED BY

HENRY TUDOR ANNETTE CARSON

32

cially Henry’s wealthy mother (Margaret

Beaufort) and step-father (Lord Stanley) as a

huge coup for their cause. In return for gain-

ing – as they believed – such heavyweight

support, they would have considered it a fair

price to offer Henry the hand of one of the

king’s sisters once he had helped Edward V

back to the throne. It is, by the way, surely

risible that any marriage contract was consid-

ered without such conditions attached.

Spreading the rumour that Edward V and

his brother had been killed was the next ploy

of the Tudor camp. The insurgents, whom

they were now manipulating, would readily

believe Richard III capable of such killing,

and could be stampeded into accepting Henry

Tudor as a ready-made contender for the

throne in place of the unloved Buckingham.

So Henry now presented himself to the rebels

as the new Yorkist candidate by promising to

marry the eldest surviving daughter of Ed-

ward IV, conveniently misrepresenting the

true nature of the contract that was discussed

with her mother. His Yorkist credentials were

further reinforced after the collapse of the

rebellion when, taking that rather glib prom-

ise at face value, refugee rebels gravitated to

him in Brittany.

Richard III, meanwhile, either discounted

Tudor or was unaware that he presented any

threat. We see this from Richard’s failure

even to mention Henry Tudor in his brief to

his ambassador, Thomas Hutton (although the

name of Sir Edward Woodville featured

prominently) when Hutton was sent to negoti-

ate with Francis II in July 1483.5 Even in ear-

ly 1484, with the insurrection safely snuffed

out, Richard in his Act of Attainder failed to

denounce Tudor as anything other than a

‘rebel’, in contrast to his later proclamations

repudiating Tudor as a claimant to the

throne.6

With hindsight, of course, we think of

Tudor as a pretender from the October rebel-

lion onwards. It is significant, however, that

no chronicler mentions any manifesto by Tu-

dor at that time, although the Crowland cleric

tells us that Buckingham issued one (now,

presumably, lost).7 Here we have another

example of the clever politicking of the Tudor

camp, avoiding commitment to any particular

cause in case a better one should come along.

The policy served them well, alien though it

was to the old-fashioned ethics of chivalry.

It was Richard’s own almost-successful

attempt to extradite Henry Tudor from Britta-

ny that prompted the exile’s next volte-face,

when he threw in his lot with France. By then

his motley crew had been joined by the last

remnants of the Lancastrian faction led by the

earl of Oxford, recently escaped from prison.

The French now came up with a different role

for Tudor to play: he was to adopt a newly

invented Lancastrian pose as Henry VI’s son

and successor.8

Despite stories fed to Polydore Vergil

about Buckingham’s divinely-inspired notion

to unite the rival royal houses, with Henry

(Lancaster) marrying Edward IV’s daughter

Elizabeth (York), these can safely be classi-

fied as retrospective Tudor hogwash. In the

summer of 1483, when Buckingham allegedly

proposed the idea, Henry Tudor had not dared

to present himself as a scion of the house of

Lancaster: not only because he was descend-

ed from bastard stock, but also – more im-

portantly – because he was entirely dependent

on Yorkist supporters who wanted no truck

with the Lancastrian dynasty.

Somehow, during 1484, Tudor’s persua-

sive advisers managed to win over most of

those very Yorkists so that they now accepted

the proposition of shedding their blood to

restore the house of Lancaster, in the person

of an heir they knew to be spurious. Perhaps

they understood that it was all a cynical ploy.

More likely, being committed to rebellion and

exile, they found themselves between a rock

and a hard place. The huge gamble that was

required of Henry by the French in claiming

the crown through his ‘father’ Henry VI is

underlined by the omission of any further

public reference to that once-crucial marriage

with Elizabeth of York. It is not surprising

that several prominent members of Henry’s

entourage, including some Woodvilles, were

disillusioned enough to desert him and accept

pardons from Richard III.

One would think such blatant imposture

would destroy his credibility. Yet amazingly,

Henry Tudor, posing first as supporter of Ed-

ward V, then as Yorkist-by-marriage, and

33

finally as pseudo-Lancastrian heir, managed

to hoodwink substantial numbers of people.

Little wonder that a candidate so evidently

willing to accommodate his backers would

also appeal to those disaffected magnates in

England who found their old powers of extor-

tion curbed by Richard III, who had curtailed

their retainers and legislated protections for

ordinary citizens. Those who deserted Rich-

ard to support Henry would later learn to rue

their mistake.

In the end Tudor managed to present him-

self as all things to all people: king by right of

conquest, with the stamp of divine approval;

duke of Lancaster by the simple expedient of

awarding himself the title; and unifier of York

and Lancaster by virtue of taking a Yorkist

queen. Nevertheless, there was considerable

dissatisfaction on all three counts. Yorkists

were resentful of his repeated postponement

of Elizabeth’s coronation. Those who knew

their genealogy were well aware that legiti-

mate heirs of Lancaster existed who were far

senior to him. And as for his so-called ‘right

of conquest’, there was outspoken opposition

in Parliament to this claim because, as many

magnates pointed out, they had actually hand-

ed him England on a plate.9

Although few historians acknowledge the

fact, Henry Tudor triumphed by means of the

sheer deviousness at which he proved so

adept throughout his life. It is one of the great

ironies of history that Richard III has been

cast as the master of dirty tricks and Henry as

the champion of rectitude. There can be no

doubt that the ideals of chivalry – valour,

fidelity, truth and generosity – were trampled

underfoot along with Richard III at Bosworth.

Notes

1. Annette Carson, Richard III: The Maligned

King (The History Press, 2008).

2. Rosemary Horrox, Richard III: A Study of

Service (Cambridge University Press, 1989,

1992), p. 169; Michael K. Jones & Malcolm

G. Underwood, The King’s Mother: Lady

Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond

and Derby (Cambridge University Press,

1992), p. 125.

3. Ralph A. Griffiths & Roger S. Thomas,

The Making of the Tudor Dynasty (Sutton

Publishing, 1985, 1997), p. 102.

4. The Crowland Chronicle Continuations

1459-1486, ed. Nicholas Pronay & John Cox

(Richard III and Yorkist History Trust, 1986),

p. 163; Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia,

Books 23–25, ed. J.B. Nichols (1846), p. 188.

5. Griffiths & Thomas, Tudor Dynasty, p. 86.

6. British Library Harleian MS 433, ed. R.E.

Horrox & P.W. Hammond (Richard III Socie-

ty, 1979-83), vol. 3, pp. 124–5.

7. Crowland Chronicle Continuations, ed.

Pronay & Cox, p. 163.

8. Michael K. Jones, Bosworth 1485: Psy-

chology of a Battle (Tempus, 2002), pp. 124–

5.

9. Sir George Buck, The History of King

Richard the Third, ed. Arthur N. Kincaid

(Sutton Publishing, 1979), pp.

87-89; Crowland Chronicle Continuations,

ed. Pronay & Cox, p. 195.

34

Archaeological Excavations at Grey Friars, Leicester

CHRIS WARDLE

L ast summer there was considerable fer-

vour in some sections of the Richard III

Society as some members appeared to be-

lieve that the last resting place of Richard III

was about to be discovered. The reason was

that word had got out that a site on a Leices-

ter street named Grey Friars was about to be

redeveloped, and there was to be an archaeo-

logical excavation before that happened.

Richard III’s tomb

In order to understand the reason for the fer-

vour, members need to recall what is known

of the fate of Richard III’s body. Following

his victory at Bosworth, Henry VII entered

Leicester in triumph on 23 August, 1485.

One of his first acts was to place the deposed

king’s body on display, in order that there

could be no doubt that Richard was dead. It

is likely that Richard’s naked body was

shown on one of the gates of The Newarke, a

religious precinct that lay just to the south of

Leicester Castle. After three days the body

was taken down and given to the care of

Franciscan friars. The Franciscans, or Grey

Friars, had a friary on the southern side of

the walled town, and would probably have

buried him within their church, as befitted

someone of such rank. Without any endow-

ment, however, there was probably nothing

other than perhaps a simple plaque to mark

the grave.

Some ten years after Bosworth, in July

1495, it appears that Henry VII moved to

correct this omission. Royal Commissioners

appointed a craftsman in alabaster from Not-

tingham, paying him £50 to erect monument

over Richard’s grave. There are no contem-

porary records of the nature of Richard’s

monument, but in his Chronicles of England,

Scotland and Ireland, published in 1577,

Raphael Holinshed says that it incorporated

‘a picture of alabaster representing his per-

son’. The use of alabaster for the monument

is a useful additional clue as to the location

of the grave within the friary. Alabaster is a

material that weathers rapidly when subject-

ed to rain. This makes it even more likely

that Richard’s resting place was in the body

of the church.

After the Dissolution.

Leicester’s Franciscan Friary was dissolved

in November 1538, and the subsequent fate

of Richard III’s remains is shrouded in mys-

tery. There are no readily available records

of the immediate fate of the friary church

and other cloistral buildings. All that is

known for certain is that, shortly after the

Dissolution, the site of became the property

of Sir Robert Catlyn. There can be little

doubt, however, that in a prosperous town

such as Leicester there would have been a

ready market for stone from a dismantled

friary located within the town walls. Demoli-

tion of the stone buildings probably began

almost immediately. When John Leland vis-

ited Leicester, sometime before 1543, he

recorded that the friary ‘stode at the end of

the Hospital of Mr Wigeston’ and that ‘there

was byried King Richard 3’ (Vol. 1, p. 16).

Both of these remarks suggest that much of

the structure had been dismantled before

Leland’s visit.

The fate of the tomb of Richard and his

body after the church was taken down is

unclear. One local tradition is that Richard’s

body was removed from its coffin, carried

through the streets and cast into the River

Soar, but there is reason to doubt the sub-

stance of this story. The first recorded men-

tion of it is only found more than 70 years

35

after the Dissolution, and there is no satisfac-

tory explanation as to why, more than fifty

years after his death, Richard III would have

been so unpopular in Leicester. Moreover,

other local traditions speak of Richard’s stone

coffin variously as being in one piece, and

used as a horse trough at a local inn, or else

having been broken-up and placed on display.

It is impossible either to confirm or to

refute these traditions. Even the written ac-

counts seem to be at odds. All that is known

for certain is that the Catlyn family sold the

site of the friary to Robert Herrick, a former

mayor of Leicester, and that Herrick built a

large house, Grey Friars, in the south-eastern

part of the friary precinct and probably re-

tained most of the land as a garden. The two

sources that refer to Richard’s grave are The

History of Great Britaine by John Speed, the

cartographer, published in 1611, and a history

of the family of Christopher Wren, the archi-

tect of St Paul’s Cathedral, published at the

end of the eighteenth century. When John

Speed visited Leicester at the start of the sev-

enteenth century he recorded that the site of

Richard’s grave was ‘overgrown with weeds

and nettles … and not to be found’. However,

it is reported that when Christopher Wren’s

father walked in the garden of Herrick’s

house in 1612 he was shown ‘a handsome

Stone Pillar, three Foot high’ erected for Rob-

ert Herrick and inscribed ‘Here lies the Body

of Richard III, some time King of England’.

The Layout of the Friary.

Before considering to the findings of the re-

cent excavation it is necessary to say some-

thing about what is known of the Franciscan

friary, and what happened to Grey Friars

House.

As well as there being no readily available

records for the Dissolution, there are few

known surviving documentary accounts for

the friary before the Dissolution. It is possi-

ble, however, on the basis of cartographic

evidence and existing property boundaries, to

work out the approximate extent of the friary

precinct. This appears to have been an area

roughly 180 metres long and 130 metres wide

at the western end and 70 metres wide at the

eastern end.

This raises the question as to how much of

the precinct at Leicester would have been

occupied by the church and the cloistral

buildings. However, without either detailed

documentary or archaeological evidence we

cannot be certain where in the precinct the

church and the cloisters were located.

Apart from a vague report that burials

were found towards the western end of the

area of the former precinct in the 1740s, the

only clues come from what we know of Fran-

ciscan friaries elsewhere in the English Mid-

lands. Franciscan friaries in this region tended

to conform to a standard basic plan, with a

church, which was invariably aligned on an

east-west axis, with a cloister, or cloisters, to

the south. Churches were normally long and

narrow, with a large nave at the west end, in

which friars would preach to the townsfolk.

There was usually a crossing at the east end

of the nave, with a crossing tower and with

transepts to north and south. To the east of the

crossing lay the chancel. The chancel would

have been reserved for the friars, and was

separated from everything to the west by a

dividing wall built to about head height.

The precinct of the Franciscan friary in

Lichfield, Staffordshire, was similar in area to

that of the Franciscan friary in Leicester. Un-

like the example in Leicester, however, the

location and plan of Lichfield friary is reason-

ably well understood, as a result of a combi-

nation of good documentary evidence and

evidence recovered from a large excavation in

the 1920s, evidence which was confirmed in

the 1990s. At Lichfield the nave was 33 me-

tres long x 18 metres wide, the chancel was

28 metres long x 17 metres wide, and the

main cloister (there was also a little cloister to

the south of the main cloister) was 24 metres

square.

Hence the principal buildings of the Lich-

field friary only occupied a small fraction of

the total area of the precinct, the rest of the

area having been taken-up by a graveyard,

various outbuildings and extensive gardens.

There is no reason to believe the principal

buildings would have occupied a larger frac-

tion of the precinct at Leicester.

Grey Friars House.

36

37

In the centuries following its construction in

the late sixteenth century for Robert Herrick

Grey Friars House passed though several

hands. During this time it declined in status

from being a house in single occupancy to

being sub-divided and occupied by tenants.

Cartographic evidence suggests that by the

early eighteenth century much of the land on

the street frontage had been sold off. In 1740

the eastern end of the former precinct was

sold and a new road, New Street, created

across the entire width of the site.

In 1776 Thomas Pares, the owner of a

hosiery company, purchased Grey Friars

House and the eastern part of the former pre-

cinct. Following the decline of his hosiery

business, in 1800 Pares founded a bank. The

offices of Pares’s Bank were established in

the north-eastern corner of the former pre-

cinct. During the succeeding decades Pares’s

Bank prospered whilst Grey Friars House

continued to decline. Thus Grey Friars House

was demolished in 1872, to make way for a

street on the western side of Pares’s Bank,

and in 1901 the original Pares’s Bank build-

ing was torn down to make way for a grander

bank building with a large domed banking

hall and ornately decorated exterior. This

bank is now a Grade II* Listed Building.

The Archaeological Excavation.

Over succeeding generations Pares’s bank

was merged with larger banks, forming what

is now the NatWest Bank. The imposing

building, however, remained in use as a bank

until the late 1990s, when NatWest decided to

transfer their business elsewhere in the town

centre.

In 1990, members of the Richard III socie-

ty placed a plaque on the west side of the

bank identifying it as the site of the Francis-

can Friary. This, more than anything, proba-

bly explains why some members came to

believe the bank might mark the final resting

place of Richard III.

After the building became vacant various

proposals, were put forward for its use. Most

of the proposals foundered because they

would result in unacceptable changes to the

fabric of the bank; however, the most recent

proposal has been approved. This entails the

conversion the ground floor into a restaurant

and the conversion of the upper floors into

flats.

The aspect of this proposal which led to

the archaeological excavation was the demoli-

tion of a single-storeyed extension built in the

1950s, and its replacement with a block of

flats. The block of flats is to be quite small,

measuring approximately 15 m. x 15 m. How-

ever, as it lies within the defences of Roman

Leicester, defences that were re-used in the

Middle Ages, and is believed to lie within the

precinct of a medieval friary, the developers

were required to appoint an archaeologist to

record the buried remains that might be de-

stroyed by the erection of the flats.

This excavation got under way in the late

summer of 2007 and continued into the early

autumn. Members who anticipated the dis-

covery of a medieval grave alongside clear

traces of a friary church will be disappointed.

The first archaeologically significant strata

were encountered some 1.5 metres below the

surface. These consisted of Roman deposits

which probably represented the remains of a

sequence of Roman structures. The only evi-

dence that there might have been a church in

the vicinity came in the form of a fragment of

a stone coffin lid that was found in a post-

medieval drain.

Whilst the absence of traces of a friary

church might mean that post-medieval dis-

turbance has destroyed any medieval depos-

its, the assumption has to be that the friary

church lay elsewhere within the precinct. The

chances are that the Franciscan friars were

only given the site for their friary in the mid

twelfth century because it lay close to the

defences and was largely undeveloped at the

times. As noted above, the church and the

cloister, or cloisters, occupied a fraction of

the precinct, and much of the rest would have

been gardens. The excavation only examined

1.25% of the area of the former friary pre-

cinct.

38

More Research - Tempting Diversions

TONI MOUNT

I am still researching the Physician’s Hand-

book, MS.8004, dated to 1454, at the

Wellcome Library in London. By the time

you read this, I will be coming to the end of

my second year of part-time study for my

MPhil by Research with the University of

Kent – just one more year left to go. The the-

sis is coming along nicely – I think so, any-

way – but I needed to do more research into

other texts and manuscripts in order to broad-

en my knowledge of medical writing at the

time. So on 10 January 2008, I visited the

Wellcome Library again, this time to study

some late-fifteenth-century medical texts, in

order to make comparison with MS.8004, but

the mss contained some quite intriguing stuff,

not necessarily of a medical bent at all, and I

thought I’d tell you about some of the tempt-

ing diversions I’ve found.

I ordered up two mss that seemed reasona-

ble candidates – MS.411 and MS.5650. Both

are random collections of fifteenth century

medical texts, bound together, probably for

the convenience of some long-forgotten li-

brarian. MS.411 comes in a sad-looking bind-

ing, urgently in need of some expensive TLC,

the ancient leather shedding scraps at every

touch. It contains fourteen separate items,

some incomplete, some in Latin, others in

Middle English, dealing with topics as varied

as ‘lucky’ and ‘unlucky’ days to begin a sea

voyage or medical treatment, to a recipe for

roast whale. This last proved disappointing

though, the instructions simply say ‘skin it,

roast it and serve it forth’. I wonder how it

was put on a spit and who had a fireplace big

enough to cook it.

Tucked away on a page within a ‘boke of

Nativitees’ in MS.411/4 was an intriguing list

of memorable folk – no indications as to

whether it was a guest list for dinner or a list

of Christmas present recipients – headed by

the duke (yes, ‘duke’) of Northumberland.

The list goes on: erle of warwyk, my lorde

Ambros, my lorde Harry, syr John gayttes,

doctor saunders, doctor rydlie byschoppe of

London … At this point in my deliberations,

the fire alarm went and everyone had to evac-

uate the library which rather interrupted my

train of thought. However, waiting outside on

the pavement in the rain without a coat (left

behind in a locker), I mulled over the list –

wasn’t Ridley burned at the stake in Mary

Tudor’s reign? Was he ever bishop of Lon-

don? Of course, the Tudors are NOT my peri-

od but if I could identify these people more

accurately, it might be a means of dating the

list, though probably not the ms itself, since it

appears someone was simply making use of a

blank piece of paper. However, it would sug-

gest the book was ready to hand at the time

and that it was in the home of somebody well

up the social scale.

In this instance, the list could be dated to

within just two years: 1551-1553. John Dud-

ley, Earl of Warwick, was promoted to Duke

of Northumberland by Edward VI in 1551

and his eldest son, also John, took the War-

wick earldom at the same time. Ambrose and

Henry were the next sons in line – there were

also Robert, Queen Bess’s boyfriend, and

Guildford (or Guilford) who wed Lady Jane

Grey, but these two sons weren’t on the list.

Sir John Gates, whom I’d never heard of be-

fore, was close to the Dudleys and was exe-

cuted for treason by Mary Tudor, alongside

the Duke of Northumberland, on 22 August

1553 – a good day to dispose of a Northum-

berland. Dr Edward Saunders was a judge

who served into the reign of Elizabeth I and,

yes, Dr Nicholas Ridley was Bishop of Lon-

don from 1549 until 1553. He was burned at

the stake in Oxford in 1554, along with Bish-

op Latimer, two of the many Protestant mar-

tyrs of Mary’s troubled reign. Nothing to do

with medieval medicine, I know, but I

39

thought I’d tell you about this as an example

of how useful a list of names could be as da-

ting evidence – and to show how easy it is to

be tempted away from your intended avenue

of research.

Before the summer term ends, I have to

present a portfolio of work done so far which

must include a 10,000 word essay that will

later become part of my final thesis. I have

chosen to write my essay on the ‘Pilgrimage’

section of MS.8004, the description of a jour-

ney from London to Jerusalem, reckoned in

this case to be a unique inclusion in a medical

handbook. In order to make comparisons, I’ve

studied a number of other pilgrimage texts

from the late fourteenth to the very early six-

teenth century, to see how their chosen routes

to the Holy Land might vary and whether

they tended to visit the same sacred sites

when they got there. My subject may be me-

dieval medicine and my favourite topic Eng-

lish late medieval history but I’ve had to take

up medieval European and Palestinian geog-

raphy and hagiography in order to make sense

of the pilgrimage. Take ‘Jarre’ for example.

All the pilgrimage writing in MS.8004 tells us

is that it is somewhere on the journey after

Venice and before Corfu and that while

you’re there, you can see the body of ‘Sancte

Symond’ and at ‘þe mynster of Sanct Nicho-

lace is a fayr pilgrimage to Sanct Anastasse

whych wasse att þe byrth of our lord Jesu

Criste’. Jarre could be anywhere along the

Adriatic coasts of either Italy or the Balkans. I

began by looking in the most obvious place –

Google maps – but nowhere seemed to exist

with a name remotely like ‘Jarre’, though I

tried numerous spellings: Iarre, Iara, Jara,

Jerra … nothing. So I tried looking up the

saints’ names on the Roman Catholic website

of saints.1 Here I found a few Sts Simon but

none were buried around the Adriatic and all

the Sts Anastasius were popes, so they could-

n’t have been at Christ’s birth. However, St

Anastasia has her feast day on 25 December,

so I reckoned she was probably the saint in

question, and she was said to be buried, ac-

cording to the website, at some entirely un-

pronounceable place. There was no mention

of her being at ‘Jarre’ but I decided to investi-

gate the Croatian coast, rather than the Italian,

if only because I can’t pronounce half the

place names there. So I searched the Croatian

tourist board website,2 looking for Anasta-

sia’s name … and found it and nearly booked

a holiday while I was at it. St Anastasia is

buried in St Nicholas Cathedral in Zadar,

known to the Italians as Zara … no wonder I

couldn’t find it spelled with a ‘J’. The place

apparently has connections to St Simeon – the

guy who went up the pole and stayed there,

not Simon, so that solved another little mys-

tery. The Croatian website also made it possi-

ble to identify ‘Arogose’ as Dubrovnik since

this town was formerly known as ‘Ragusa’.

My knowledge of Balkan geography, history

and architecture must have improved tenfold,

from nothing to a rough idea at least.

What I think this shows is:

Historical research can’t be done in isola-

tion, ‘interdisciplinary’ is the word. It may require a bit of thinking ‘outside

the box’ with some guesswork and luck

thrown in. The internet can be amazingly useful.

But research can be frustrating too. My

main source for comparison of the ‘Pilgr-

image’ section of MS.8004 is a book written

by William Wey, a priest and tutor at Eton

who went on three pilgrimages, his first being

to Compostella in 1457 and the second to

Jerusalem in 1462. His writings, printed by

Wynkyn de Worde at Westminster in 1498 as

Informacon for Pylgrymes unto the Holy

Londe, describe a third journey, also to Jeru-

salem, in which the route taken is very similar

to that described in MS.8004, as are the de-

scriptions of many of the sites visited in the

Holy Land itself. Sometimes the wording is

identical. Did Wey copy from MS.8004? Did

Wey and the author of MS.8004 copy from

some common source? Or was the ‘Pilgr-

image’ section of MS.8004 added later than

the date of 1454 at the front of the ms and

possibly copied from Wey’s original ms?3

The trouble arises in dating Wey’s last pil-

grimage. He mentions a specific date on his

third journey: Saturday 14 July. So I checked

the Handbook of Dates4 and the 14 July was a

Saturday in 1464, 1470, 1481, 1487 and 1492.

E Gordon Duff, a Victorian historian who

produced a facsimile of Wey’s printed book

40

in 1893,5 says Wey must have made this third

pilgrimage after 1470, though he doesn’t say

why, but the Oxford Dictionary of National

Biography entry for Wey6 says he died in

1476 and had ‘retired’ by c.1467. This makes

1464 or 1470 the only possible dates for

Wey’s second trip to Jerusalem, yet no source

that I’ve found so far suggests Wey went any-

where in those particular years. I wonder

why?

So the research goes on …

Notes

1.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01453a.h

tm

2.http://www.croatia.hr/English/Destinacije/O

pcenito.aspx?idDestination=197&idProperty=

16

3.MS Bodley 565, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

4.Cheney, C.R., Handbook of Dates, Royal

Historical Society, London, 1991.

5.Duff, E. Gordon (ed.), Information for Pil-

grims, Oxford & London, 1893.

6.Summerson, Henry,’William Wey’, Oxford

Dictionary of National Biography, 2004.

41

Margaret of York: A Genuinely Scandalous Dispensation? - A Response

MARK BALLARD

S o far as I can judge them, I have general-

ly found Marie Barnfield’s arguments in

relation to the marriage dispensation between

Richard and Anne Neville persuasive.1 But

her speculations in the spring 2008 Ricardian

Bulletin (pp. 35-36) that the terms of the dis-

pensation of 17 May 1468, allowing the mar-

riage between Charles the Bold of Burgundy

and Margaret of York, point to previous sexu-

al liaisons on the bride’s part seem to me to

rest on shakier ground. Barnfield’s case ap-

pears to depend on a relationship in affinity

having already arisen between them through

Margaret being regarded by the Church as the

widow of a previous sexual partner, one who,

moreover, was related by blood to Charles.

But, being previously unmarried, she could

not be a widow.

Their first dispensation, authorised, ac-

cording to Peter D. Clarke’s recent EHR arti-

cle,2 by the cardinal penitentiary on 24 No-

vember 1467, was intended to absolve the

parties from the impediment of consanguinity

in the third and fourth degrees. This was

(pace Barnfield) quite correct. Charles and

Margaret were third cousins, both being

great-great-grandchildren of Edward III and

Philippa of Hainault (Margaret being de-

scended from them through both her parents),

which made them related in the fourth degree

of consanguinity. This was within the prohib-

ited degrees, and was mentioned because their

closer relationship – as second cousins

through Edward’s son John of Gaunt – was

on one side only: Charles being descended

from John of Gaunt’s first wife Blanche, and

Margaret from his third wife, Katherine

Swynford.

I have always supposed that the relation-

ship in affinity between Charles and Marga-

ret, which the effective dispensation of May

1468 excused, arose through these two mar-

riages of John of Gaunt. One of the prohibited

relationships in Roman law was between

step-mother and step-son, and the Church

adopted its definitions of affinity relation-

ships, but then extended them by applying the

civil law’s computation of consanguinity (i.e.

by degrees) to those relationships. While the

fourth Lateran Council of 1215 suppressed

certain impediments in affinity, it is my un-

derstanding that a relation between step-

mother and step-son remained a bar to the

marriage of their descendants up to the fourth

degree of the collateral line, unless specifical-

ly absolved; and that it would also extend to

preceding generations within the prohibited

degrees. So by this extended definition, it

would be prohibited for Charles the Bold to

enter a marriage with his own step-mother,

his mother’s step-mother, or his grand-

mother’s step-mother, Katherine Swynford;

and while any such union with the latter

would plainly be absurd, a marriage between

him and a descendant of that relation, such as

Margaret of York, would also remain within

the prohibited degrees, and obviously not be

absurd at all.3

There were problems with Charles and

Margaret’s first dispensation, but they were

perceived to be ones of form and not of sub-

stance. As with other marriages of the period,

it is worth considering that providing declara-

tory letters were obtained, a dispensation

could be valid without mentioning every pro-

hibited degree of relationship between the

42

parties, so long as it mentioned the closest.4

There is not space here to speculate on what

the formal problems may have been, nor to

explain why I believe the French attempts to

lobby the pope had absolutely no effect on

either dispensation. But two other factors may

have led Marie Barnfield into her interpreta-

tion.

Firstly, Scofield,5 in relating the circum-

stances in which the second dispensation was

accorded, depended on A.B. Hinds’ calen-

dared version of a letter of Tomasso Portinari

of 8 April 1468.6 I believe her conjecture was

coloured by the rumours of intrigue which

originate not in the original (or, rather, surviv-

ing contemporary copy),7 but in Hinds’ rather

too free, and misdated, translation. Scofield

suspected George Neville, archbishop of

York, to be responsible for the intrigue, as she

knew from a passage in William Gregory

that he had seemed to be currying favour with

the papal legate – though maybe in regard to

other matters. (Uncharacteristically, she also

seemed to confuse the papal legate, Stefano

Trenta, with the envoy who brought the first

dispensation to London).

Secondly, the dispensation sought for the

marriage between George, Duke of Clarence,

and Isabel Neville may have been a fairly hot

issue for the Neville family when Charles and

Margaret sought theirs, but I doubt it was

proceeding simultaneously at the penitentiary,

so this is a further argument against the effec-

tiveness of Neville meddling in the latter.

Clarence’s dispensation was granted on 14

March 1469, not 1468.8 I have not seen Dug-

dale’s transcription in the Bodleian of the lost

original grant. But the original’s dating clause

cannot have been worded, ‘Datum Rome apud

sanctum Petrum pridie Idus Martij Anno

1468 7 Edwardi quarti’, for what would Ed-

ward IV’s regnal year be doing in a papal

charter? ‘7 Edwardi quarti’ was presumably

Dugdale’s interpolation; and if so, he interpo-

lated wrongly. 14 March in Edward’s seventh

regnal year would have fallen in 1467, where-

as a day before Easter in 1468 must be inter-

preted in new style as 1469. This is the date

accepted by Michael Hicks in his Oxford

DNB article on Clarence, which brings it ap-

propriately closer to Clarence and Isabel’s

actual marriage on 11 July 1469.

Some members of the London and Home

Counties Branch will have heard me attempt

(in a talk in 2004) to explain why Stefano

Trenta overcame his previous reluctance to

provide Charles and Margaret with their ef-

fective dispensation in May 1468. I am hop-

ing my account will shortly be published, but

those who are curious can meanwhile refer to

my 1992 Oxford D. Phil. thesis, Anglo-

Burgundian Relations 1464-1472, for my

views have not greatly changed since the ap-

pearance of Peter Clarke’s EHR article.

Notes

1. Ricardian Bulletin, Spring, Summer and

Autumn 2006, and ‘Diriment Impediments,

Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and

Martrimony’, The Ricardian, xvii, (2007), pp.

84-98.

2. Peter D. Clarke, ‘English Royal Marriages

and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth

Century’, English Historical Review, cxx,

(2005), pp. 1014-1029.

3. P. Bib, ‘Affinité’, in Dictionnaire de droit

canonique, ed. R. Naz, (Paris, 1935-65), i, pp.

271-281.

4. G. Oesterle, ‘Consanguinité’, in Diction-

naire de droit canonique, iv, pp. 232-244, at

p. 244.

5. C.L. Scofield, The Life and Reign of Ed-

ward the Fourth, (London, 1923), i. p. 457.

6. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts

existing in the Archives and Collections of

Milan, 1385-1618, ed. A.B. Hinds, (London,

1913), pp. 122-3.

7. Reproduced in Carteggi Diplomatici fra

Milan Sforzesca e la Borgogna, ed. E. Sestan,

(Fonti per la Storia d’Italia, Rome, 1985-7), i.

pp. 234-6.

8. As in M. Barnfield, Ricardian Bulletin,

Summer 2006, p. 55, and ‘Diriment Impedi-

ments’, p. 89n.

43

The Bulletin Editorial Team anticipated responses to David Fiddimore’s article in the spring is-

sue and it seemed appropriate to include them together and to ‘resurrect’ our Bulletin debating

section. We will be pleased to receive any further correspondence from members.

An Impromptu Debate

From Chris Ward, via e-mail

As a long-standing member of the Society,

may I say how much I enjoyed the latest Bul-

letin, both its new look and content. But I

wanted to comment specifically upon the arti-

cle by David Fiddimore. I suspect you will

receive a lot of correspondence on the article,

and that most of it may take issue with it. I

have to say that I found it a very challenging

and refreshing article. Too often in the past I

feel that the Society has avoided having a

proper debate about our controversial hero.

Indeed, at times there is a blind and some-

times childish devotion to the man as if he

had no faults at all.

To be a medieval king meant being harsh

and ruthless – I for one sincerely doubt that

Richard can have been as saintly as some

would have him. And indeed, for me part of

the attraction is his flaws and the uncertainty

and, yes, the possibility, which we surely

must allow, that despite our hope and belief

that he cannot have been the black villain

portrayed by Shakespeare and history, he just

might have been.

But back to Mr Fiddimore’s argument that

Richard’s reign was not a success. I fear that

on reflection he is correct. His was one of the

shortest reigns in English history. His actions,

whatever their motives, and whatever the

truth behind them, caused the downfall of the

Yorkists and indeed the Plantagenets. What-

ever we may wish to believe about what actu-

ally happened, it is hard to deny that his ac-

tions in that fateful spring and summer of

1483 were directly responsible for the end of

the Plantagenet dynasty. He signally failed to

command sufficient support and loyalty

across the kingdom to prevent rebellion and

invasion and defeat. He displayed ruthless-

ness and arbitrariness in his executions of

Rivers and Hastings – we rightly condemn

Henry VIII for such tyranny, yet allow it in

Richard. Maybe the executions were neces-

sary for self-preservation, but his actions

seem to have alienated a large part of the

body politic and meant that throughout his

reign he was never able to establish wide-

spread acceptance of and acquiesence in his

rule. Lancastrians had become reconciled to

Yorkist rule under Edward IV, and, had he

lived longer, would doubtless have continued

to support the regime and his successors. But

something happened to change that, and deny

Richard the same level of support and trust.

As king, only Richard bore the responsibility

for that.

And I have to say that his treatment of

Rivers and Hastings is not inconsistent with a

decision to remove his nephews from the sce-

ne – but here we are into the realms of specu-

lation. We simply may never know what hap-

pened to them. DNA analysis of ‘them bones’

would surely help establish if they could be

those of the Princes or not. I for one would

wish that the Society pressed for a further

analysis as this is one clear area where we

could easily add to our knowledge of this

mystery. After all, even if analysis showed

that they were both male, were related to each

other and were of the royal blood it will not

prove how they died; but if they turned out to

be female, or not related, or had no royal

DNA then we would be some way along to

disproving the calumny of which Richard

stands accused by so many.*

As Mr Fiddimore points out, Richard’s

reign did have some successes and redeeming

features, but, weighted against the fact that he

could not retain his throne in the face of de-

44

termined active and passive opposition, I fear

that Mr Fiddimore’s assessment of the reign

as a failure is the correct one.

Despite this assertion, I remain a loyal and

committed Ricardian. My Richard is no plas-

ter saint; he is a man, with flaws and weak-

nesses, with strengths and beliefs, and as one

of the central figures in, for me, the most fas-

cinating period of English history, he will

always command and inspire fierce loyalty

and fierce condemnation. The Society’s aim

is to promote research into the life and times

of Richard III, and this should include the

publishing and debating of opinions that are

not necessarily those held by the majority of

members. For if we degenerate into a group

of people who want to hear nothing bad about

our hero, then we do him a great disservice.

Loyaulté me lie!

From Paul Moorehead, via e-mail

I joined the Society many years ago after

reading Paul Murray Kendall. Since then I

have been a very passive member. However,

the past two issues of the Bulletin have

sparked me off into a more proactive mode.

Why Hastings lost his head got me going in

the winter issue, and this, coupled with David

Fiddimore’s article in the spring issue, really

aroused my interest and sent me scurrying off

to re-read Geoffrey Richardson’s The Deceiv-

ers and Secret History Part II, by R.E. Col-

lins. I have long held the opinion that Rich-

ard’s tragedy started well before his reign,

and some of the lack of support he received

during his reign was because he did not read

men very well as Lord of the North. I am

thinking particularly of Percy’s laggardly

progress to Bosworth in particular. I liked

David’s coupling of modern politics with

Richard’s situation. Gordon Brown fits the

mould well, as stepping up to being king is

not easy, and did not sit lightly on Richard,

who I feel strongly only took the crown be-

cause he felt it was his duty to do so after

Stillington’s disclosures. I also feel that he

lost the final battle, that he should have won,

because he had reached the stage where he

was weary of it all, and felt that if God was

on his side he would prevail.

So: thank you for the continued high level

of excellence of the Bulletin. It seems to go

from strength to strength. And my thanks to

all in the Society who work so hard to bring

such as impressive publication to us armchair

members.

From Anne Sutton

Mr Fiddimore is clearly feeling as depressed

as anyone else who thinks too much about

modern politicians and how they are present-

ed in newspapers and on television, and about

the entertainment fantasies of Ian McKellan

and his director on the theme of Shake-

speare's version of Richard III. The solution is

to stop thinking about events and persons of

over 500 years ago in terms of the fixations

of modern media. We have no one around

today with whom to compare a king with the

power, responsibilities, conscience and piety

of a Richard III. To understand Richard III

and his times it is necessary to give oneself a

hard course of reading the records and

thoughts of the time: read Harleian Manu-

script 433, the calendars of patent rolls, some

constitutional ideas (e.g. as explained by S.B.

Chrimes), the wills of ordinary persons of

which plenty are in print already and the So-

ciety is shortly to print the Logge Wills; then

progress to Richard’s personal possessions

and understand what he read and thought

about in The Hours of Richard III and Rich-

ard III's Books. Ignore other people’s opinion

and absorb the detail, and positive thinking is

the guaranteed result .

*Editors: The re-examination of the bones is an issue that is raised on a fairly regular basis by

members. The current situation is that the authorities, represented by the Dean of Westminster,

are unwilling for a re-examination to take place, though the ultimate decision rests with HM The

Queen as the Abbey is a ‘royal peculiar’, i.e. under her personal jurisdiction. The Society has

approached the Dean within the last few years and permission was refused. We also understand

Continued on p. 63

45

The Real Reason Why Hastings Lost His Head: Some Thoughts

WENDY MOORHEN

I n the winter 2007 and spring 2008 issues

of the Bulletin David Johnson made a star-

tling accusation against William Lord Has-

tings, which he believes explains Richard’s

action in summarily beheading the former

chamberlain on 13 June 1483. Does David’s

hypothesis go far enough? A number of ques-

tions need to be considered. If Hastings had

planned to murder the protector and then

blame the Woodvilles, how would this be

squared with Edward V in the months and

years to come? What would Hastings’ role

eventually become when the boy-king did

reach maturity and rule for himself? What

would have been his feelings towards the man

who had slandered his family in order to pro-

tect his own position? With the protector out

of the way, the Woodvilles damned for his

demise, who is left to protect King Edward in

the summer of 1483? Could the former cham-

berlain have taken the self same route as

Richard of Gloucester and declared the king

illegitimate and taken the throne for himself?

After all, Hastings was probably a second

cousin once removed to Edward IV and the

protector and the blood of Richard II’s possi-

ble heirs, the Mortimers, flowed through his

veins.1

Such hypotheses are, of course, specula-

tion, the stuff of Shakespearian drama and

novels. David Johnson, however, is to be ap-

plauded for providing us with an innovative

explanation of the events at the beginning of

June 1483. Unless entrenched theories are

challenged, history cannot develop. There is

no evidence to support David’s theory other

than Hastings own swift execution. However,

a lack of hard evidence is not uncommon in

our Ricardian studies! We have to look at

what data is available to us and try to interpret

it into useful information that in turn provides

explanations for the actions of the characters

in our real-life drama. The truth may well lie

in the grey area between the black and white

actions of a wronged protector/usurper and a

murderous baron/loyal royal servant.

Much of what David writes I have no

quarrel with. It is, however, with the relation-

ship between Hastings and Woodvilles that I

first have cause for concern when he writes

that after examining Mancini, Crowland and

Virgil, ‘it [is] abundantly plain there could

never have been the slightest possibility of

any such alliance’ between Hastings and the

Woodvilles. Almost every writer on the sub-

ject of this family treats them as a complete

entity, without any allowance for dissention

amongst their ranks, and implies that each

member of this clan is equally disliked or

hated or mistrusted. This is, of course, possi-

ble but considering the size of this family,

some seven or eight sisters and five brothers

plus spouses, children etc. it seems rather

unlikely. We certainly have evidence of Has-

tings’ enmity towards Rivers and Dorset but

the former is in custody at the time under

review. What of Hastings relationship with

the queen? It is highly probable that Elizabeth

Woodville came to Edward IV’s attention

through the offices of the Chamberlain when

she enlisted his assistance in her attempt to

gain a settlement of lands from her in-laws.

Could she not have retained some regard for

him? Historians have suggested she hated him

due to the tough marriage negotiations be-

tween their families but eventually a marriage

did take place, between Hastings’ step-

daughter, Cecily Bonville, and Dorset.

Mancini believed Queen Elizabeth hated Has-

tings for leading her husband astray yet it

seems strange that the Queen should single

out Hastings as the sole object of her wrath

when her brother and eldest son were party to

the king’s infidelities. Despite the propaganda

46

about their much vaunted hostility Queen

Elizabeth was a pragmatic lady, and if she

was able to come to an agreement with Rich-

ard in 1484 and emerge from sanctuary could

she not have come to an agreement with Has-

tings in 1483? After all, she would merely

have been emulating her predecessor, Marga-

ret of Anjou, who came to an accommodation

with the Kingmaker over ten years earlier.

David writes how Richard was confirmed

as protector for the longer haul, i.e. until Ed-

ward V reached his ‘ripeness of years’ and

that he would not relinquish his office imme-

diately after the coronation. Hastings ap-

peared to accept this situation. He speculates

that it was the emergence of Buckingham that

upsets the status quo. Undoubtedly Hastings

would have been perturbed at the ‘meteoric’

rise of the duke, especially as he would have

been privy to any legitimate cause why Ed-

ward IV restricted the duke’s public role.

However, it had always been King Edward’s

policy to have magnates control regions of the

country. Hastings’ own sphere of influence

was, of course, the Midlands, with Richard

and the earl of Northumberland in the north,

the Stanleys in the north-west, and so on. It

was sound policy not to have any one over-

mighty subject as in the days of the Kingmak-

er. The arrest of Rivers and Edward V’s pro-

motion to king had left a void in Wales which

needed to be filled and although Richard’s

grants to Buckingham seem excessive I doubt

that Hastings thought he was a candidate to

have received them himself. To some very

small extent the grants redressed the balance

after Hastings was granted the Honour of

Tutbury after the fall of Clarence, a grant

which, it could be argued, should have gone

to Buckingham.

It cannot be contested that the government

was fracturing by late May, with two cabals

led by Richard and Hastings. No doubt Has-

tings did feel marginalised but was this suffi-

cient to plot the murder of Richard and Buck-

ingham for purely personal gain? And so to

the conspiracy, or should I write conspira-

cies? David suggests there were two, the first

fermented by the Woodvilles and which be-

came known to Richard, who reacted on 10

June requesting help from the north. Could

the Woodvilles possibly act on their own and

without support from some members of the

Council? Rivers and Sir Richard Grey are in

gaol, the Queen and Dorset are in sanctuary

and Sir Edward out of the country. We are

then presented with the idea that Hastings was

probably aware of the Woodville conspiracy

but then devised one of his own in a very

short time-frame and enticed his colleagues

Morton and Stanley into his machinations on

13 June. Yet again Richard learned of the

plot. The protector must have had a pretty

cool intelligence agency at his disposal.

The venture was high risk, but the stakes

were high. However, would the wily, clever

and self-preserving Morton and Stanley be

drawn into something so dangerous merely

for Hastings to re-establish his pre-eminence,

and literally at the notice of an hour or two? I

would suggest that the traditional history

makes far more sense. A plot was indeed con-

ceived, with Hastings, Morton and Stanley as

the ringleaders, supported by Oliver King and

John Forster, and developed during the first

days of June. The plotters had learned that

Stillington had revealed his secret to Richard,

a scenario not discussed by David. As the

king’s mother, the Queen had to be made

aware of what was happening and drawn into

the conspiracy. The survival of Edward V’s

kingship was the prize and who else but his

father’s most faithful supporter would commit

himself to this end? And this is the crux of the

matter. Everything we know about Hastings

screams out his loyalty and it is possible that

Hastings did have murder in his heart when

he learned that Richard was in possession of

this information and might seek the ultimate

office – his concern would have been for the

honour of his dead sovereign’s reputation and

the future of his sons. Certainly we can dis-

miss Sir Thomas More’s fanciful description

of a Hastings as a ‘gentle knight’. Hastings

was a hard-headed, tough nobleman who was

not afraid to fight for what he believed was

his right but would he really have gone be-

yond the pale and stooped to common mur-

der, displaying a pettiness and petulance that

is totally out of character? I think not.

Continued on p. 62

47

Richard in a Florence Restaurant

From Sandra Love, via e-mail

I thought I would write to you about a sur-

prise encounter my husband John and I had

with Richard III while we were in Florence

last year.

We went on holiday to Italy and after a

long day’s travelling we arrived at Florence,

where we were going to spend four days. As

it was late, we decided to leave our hotel,

which was just south of the Ponte Vecchio,

and have dinner at the first reasonable restau-

rant we came across. We turned left out of the

hotel and walked along a narrow road running

parallel with the River Arno. After a couple

of minutes we came across a restaurant, read

the menu in the window, and decided that this

was where we would eat that evening. On en-

tering, we felt we had stepped back in time –

the high brick walls, the dark furniture, the

paved slabs on the floor and the candles on

the tables. It was very busy but yes, there was

a table for two, in the alcove. As the waiter

led us towards it we could not believe our

eyes. There on the wall of the alcove was a

portrait of Richard III! What was he doing

there?

After a really delicious meal we asked the

owner the reason why this English king was

on the wall of a restaurant in Florence. He

took us into the street, and pointed up to the

second floor. There, attached to the wall and

sticking out into the street, was a painted met-

al white boar. The restaurant was called Os-

teria del Cinghiale Bianco – the White Boar

Restaurant.

I can thoroughly recommend the food and

the atmosphere there. I gather it is best to

book – we were very lucky to get a table. The

address is: Osteria del Cinghiale Bianco, Bor-

go Sant’ Jacopo 43, Florence (tel. 055-215-

706).

Rescued from a junk shop

From Sally Henshaw via e-mail

When, browsing through my Bulletin, I ar-

rived at page 15, I thought – ‘I know that pic-

ture’ – and then realised it hangs on my study

wall. On my painting it states it was engraved

by William Ridgway, and that it is from the

painting by N. Gosse of Paris. The title is the

same as you mentioned, with ‘The Sons of

Edward IV parted from their mother’ in capi-

tals on the top line, and underneath, in a

smaller font, ‘By Richard Duke of Gloster,

June 16th 1483’. I rescued it from a junk shop

many years ago. I also have a similar one of

the wedding of Richard, Duke of York, and

Anne Mowbray.

Richard’s responsibility

From Jill Davies, Bexhill-on-Sea

On a point arising from the Cirencester Con-

ference, concerning Tony Pollard’s analogy

of the deposition of the Princes and the de-

thronement and murder of Richard II, I do not

agree that Richard III can necessarily be held

responsible for the possible murder of the

Princes. The two cases are very different.

The Princes were children, and they were

Richard’s nephews. I agree with David Bald-

win that, even in medieval times, people did

not necessarily murder other people because

they were ‘inconvenient’, especially if the

person concerned had a genuine religious

faith. Richard III took the throne because of

political necessity. This is a vastly different

motive from the wilful intention of murdering

his nephews.

Also gaolers can, on occasion, be bribed

by outsiders, and there have been instances

where it has proved surprisingly easy for

agents with a motive to obtain jobs as prison

warders, with access to even high-profile pris-

oners.

Correspondence

Will contributors please note the letters may be edited or shortened to conform to the standards of

the Bulletin

48

The Barton Library

After holding an auction of non-fiction books last year we have decided to put some duplicate

novels up for auction this year; there are lots of old favourites and some classic Ricardian fiction

on offer. If you want to remind yourself what the novels are about, check in the printed fiction

catalogue (copies available from Anne Painter) or look at the Barton Library section of the Socie-

ty’s website.

Postal book auction: fiction

Here is a selection of novels that are surplus to requirements, on offer to the highest bidder. All

books are in reasonable condition, unless described otherwise. I should like to raise at least £2.50

for each hardback and £1 for each paperback. Each book will be sold to the member who puts in

the highest bid for it. In the event of identical bids, the winner will be the bid received first.

Please send your bids to me: Anne Painter, Yoredale, Trewithick Road, Breage, Helston,

Cornwall, TR13 9PZ or e-mail them to me at: AEPAINTER@aol.com to arrive before Friday 19

September 2008. If you wish to be reassured that I have received your postal bid(s) please en-

close a stamped addressed envelope. Please do not send any money now.

The successful bidders will be notified by post or e-mail, and the cost of postage added to the

invoices. I regret that I shall not be able to write to everyone who puts in a bid so if you do not

hear from me it will mean that your bid was unsuccessful.

Finally, in the past some members put bids in by stating ‘one pound higher than the highest

bid’, I feel that this is not really fair, so could I respectfully request members not to do it. Thank

you.

Abbey M. The Warwick Heiress 1 Hardback & 3 Paperback

Abbey M. Blood of the Boar 1 Hardback

Abbey M. Brothers in Arms 1 Hardback

Anand V. Crown of Roses 1 Hardback & 2 Paperback

Baer A. Medieval Woman 1 Hardback

Barnes M.C. The King’s Bed 1 Hardback

Bird H. The Last Plantagenet 1 Hardback

Bowen M. Dickon 1 Hardback & 4 Paperback

Carleton P. Under the Hog 1 Hardback & 3 Paperback

Edwards R. Some Touch of Pity 3 Hardback & 3 Paperback

Edwards R. Fortune’s Wheel 3 Hardback

Edwards R. The Broken Sword 2 Paperback

Evans J. The Divided Rose 1 Paperback

Fairburn E. The Rose in Spring 1 Paperback

Fairburn E. White Rose Dark Summer 1 Hardback

Farrington R. The Killing of Richard III 4 Hardback, (1 fairly poor condition)

& 1 Paperback

Farrington R. The Traitors of Bosworth 1 Hardback

Farrington R. Tudor Agent 1 Hardback

Irwin F. The White Queen 1 Hardback

Irwin F. The White Pawn 1 Hardback

Irwin F. The Winter Killing 1 Hardback

Irwin F. My Lady of Wycherley 1 Hardback

Jarman R.H. Crown in the Candlelight 1 Hardback

Jarman R.H. The King’s Grey Mare 6 Hardback

49

Jarman R.H. We Speak No Treason 2 Hardback & 2 Paperback

Jarman R.H. Courts of Illusion 1 Hardback

Lindsay P.A. Princely Knave 2 Paperback

Lofts N. The Lonely Furrow 1 Hardback

Lofts N. The Home Coming 1 Hardback

Palmer M. The White Boar 1 Hardback & 3 Paperback

Palmer M. The Wrong Plantagenet 3 Hardback & 1 Paperback

Peters E. The Murders of Richard III 1 Hardback (fairly poor condition)

Plaidy J. The Reluctant Queen 2 Hardback

Potter J.A. Trail of Blood 3 Paperback (fair to poor condition)

Rathbone J. Kings of Albion 1 Paperback

Sedley K. The Goldsmith’s Daughter 1 Hardback

Tannahill R. The Seventh Son 1 Hardback

Tey J. The Daughter of Time 5 Paperback

Wilson S. Wife to the Kingmaker 1 Hardback

Wilson S. Less Fair than Fortunate 1 Hardback

Wilson S. The Queen’s Sister 1 Hardback

Wilson S. Lady Cicely 1 Hardback

Additions to the Audio-Visual Collection since January 2008

Audio BBC Radio 4 Book of the Week: Sian Thomas reads an abridged version of Alison Weir’s biog-

raphy of Katherine Swynford (five parts). Also from the same series The King’s Glass, the story

of the glazing of King’s College Chapel, Cambridge, read by Sam West in five parts, together

with an interview with the author by Andrew Marr on Start the Week.

BBC Radio 4: Making History: Alison Weir analyses the contradictory character of John Tiptoft,

Edward IV’s Earl of Worcester, ‘ruthless butcher’ or ‘Renaissance humanist nobleman’?

Visual Channel 5 TV: Russell Grant’s Postcards visiting Tewkesbury Battlefield and Abbey as well as

the Kingmaker 1471 exhibition at Warwick Castle.

BBC 2 TV: William Marshall: the Greatest Knight. Although principally an exploration of the

twelfth-century figure, the programme contains scenes of medieval mêlée tournaments. Also

available is the BBC 2 TV 1987 programme on the same subject produced to coincide with the

Royal Academy Age of Chivalry exhibition.

Channel 4 TV: The Real Knights of the Round Table: Tony Robinson and the ‘Time Team’ in-

vestigate the Windsor site of Edward III’s Round Table building.

BBC TV East Midlands: Inside Out on the latest research into the Bosworth Battlefield site, in-

cluding interviews with Peter Foss and Glen Foard of the Battlefields Trust (kindly donated by

Richard Smith).

Middleham Castle – a Royal Residence: DVD produced and narrated by John Fox (for full details

see pages 19-22 of the spring 2008 Bulletin).

To borrow any items: please contact Geoffrey Wheeler. His details are on the inside back cover

of the Bulletin.

50

Report on Society Events

England’s Greatest Mystery – A Late Medieval Whodunnit As I turned, tired from my long journey, into the entrance of the Royal Agricultural College, I

noticed with nostalgia some rustic peasants hoeing by the side of the drive. Alas, I was mistaken

in my weariness – they were but fellow Ricardians bending down to pick up their cases. Yes,

tempus fugit: I was about to be caught up in the splendid trappings of the Society’s Triennial

Conference. I reminisced – Durham, Canterbury, Oxford, York, Cambridge – intellectual power-

houses one and all.

Now – Cirencester? In fact, we were based at the first agricultural college in the English-

speaking world, with the splendid motto ‘Practice with Science’. Granted a Royal Charter by

Queen Victoria in 1845, its President since 1984 has been Prince Charles. Would the ‘appliance

of science’ solve a 525-year-old mystery (or should that read 523-year-old?).

I soon succumbed to the splendid Gothic surroundings – even the manciple had a coat of

arms on the side of his waggon (a Citroen, I believe) – a sheaf of wheat between two rampant

rams engorged. Finger posts pointed to delights such as the Garden House Farm; only the one to

the Mechanisation Department jarred with the medieval ambience. Later, in the gloaming, 1842

easily translated into 1442 as I crossed the courtyard below the tower. The tithe barn perhaps did

not live up to its name, but the wassailing and remembrance of times past within its walls ensured

a ‘Happy Hour’ at the end of the first day. A fox lay contentedly curled on the bar’s roof, oblivi-

ous to the ribaldry below.

Learned exposition followed learned exposition: Anne Sutton on ‘Setting the Scene: April to

July 1483’; Livia Visser-Fuchs on ‘Continental Response to the rumour of the murder of the

51

Princes’; four ‘suspects’ – the dukes of Buckingham and Norfolk, Henry Tudor, and Richard III

– were forensically fingered by Anne Crawford, Sean Cunningham and Lesley Boatwright re-

spectively; Peter Hammond and Bill White were in charge of ‘The Remains’ of the day – one

couldn’t move in the Tower for fear of treading on bones, it seems.

I leave the lecturers themselves, in future Bulletins, to share with you these musings on

‘England’s Greatest Mystery’. I can but recall a few trite observations: a room which doubled as

a sauna for the first few talks; a microphone which steadfastly succumbed to the laws of gravity;

a multicoloured skull which seemed to take on a life of its own and bring back memories of the

great Eric Morecambe. I resolved never to suffer from histiocytosis or stafne cysts; and, in future,

to check the contents of all urns before use. Suffice to say, the grey cells were consistently stimu-

lated. Enough to occasion at least one dream of being chased through Colchester by a mad-eyed

master bricklayer.

Ken Livingstone might be famous for his ‘bendy buses’ – our Society has its ‘Wendy buses’

– on time, comfortable and extremely skilfully driven down lanes that seemed impossibly nar-

row. On Saturday afternoon we visited Fairford Church, famous for its twenty-eight stained glass

windows. No other parish church in the land has retained a complete set of late medieval glass.

The plan of these windows illustrates the Christian faith as in the pages of a picture book and we

were privileged to have two excellent local guides to show us round. Since 1986 there has been a

programme of restoration of the windows by the Barley Studio in York. We arrived at and left

the delightful village of Chedworth in a downpour – luckily the genuine and informative wel-

come by Annette Seymour, a Ricardian who lives there, and the delightful exposition of his craft

by 82-year-old stonemason Peter Juggins, more than made up for this. Whether or not the five

stone corbels gazing down on us portrayed Henry Tudor, Elizabeth of York, the Duke and Duch-

ess of Clarence and Saint Andrew or not, the smile (or was it a crack in the stone?) from

‘Elizabeth’ warmed our inner selves.

Then it was back to prepare for the Conference Dinner. It was held in the Ken Russell Room

– surely not named after the erstwhile film director of The Devils and more recently short-term

occupant of the Big Brother House 5? The gathered throng had arrayed themselves, not in medie-

val accoutrements for the disports of a Barley Hall, but with the rather more sober jackets and

ties and demure dresses of the twenty-first-century. Food, like the Tudors, is an acquired taste;

but this gastronome for one thoroughly enjoyed the repast and the ribald company (led on our

table, I must opine, by the revered Chairman of our august Society). The Editor of the Ricardian,

no less, capped the evening by bravely auctioning with apposite aplomb a collection of knicks

and knacks. Bargain Hunt presenters beware.

On the morrow, we re-

assembled to learn whether either,

or both, of the Princes had sur-

vived the ministrations of their

uncle or other persons unknown.

If I followed the various argu-

ments correctly – Edward V may

have died either of suffocation by

his doctor or from a botched es-

cape bid; or he might have been

crowned by the Irish, who, unfor-

tunately, kept getting his name

wrong. Richard of York, mean-

while, may have ended up at Col-

chester studying the finer points

of bricklaying. As for the mysteri-

ous ‘good little John’, Margaret of

Society Auctioneer: Anne Sutton

52

Burgundy’s surrogate son who occupied quarters later called ‘Richard’s room’ at Binche – who

knows? We thank Gordon Smith, Ann Wroe and David Baldwin for their fascinating input.

The concluding ‘Debate’, after contributions by Jennie Powys-Lybbe and Lesley Boatwright,

was ably comparèd by Tony Pollard, who did a passable imitation of Kilroy-Silk in his attempt to

aggravate the audience.

Considerable gratitude must be paid to the indefatigable Wendy Moorhen who, as Research

Officer, was responsible for the smooth running and general excellence of the weekend. We look

forward eagerly to her next tour de force – the York study weekend in 2009.

Ken Hillier

Benedictus Qui Venit: the Clare Requiem To remember King Richard and Queen Anne in a way that they would have understood, in a fit-

ting historical and religious context, is a poignant experience. So it was with the Society’s annual

Requiem Mass held this year at the Augustinian Priory of Clare in Suffolk, a place with rich and

deep connections with the House of York and its descendants.

The journey for most of us began in London. It was grey and overcast leaving the capital.

This augured badly for the rest of the day; certainly Cleopatra’s Needle to our right on leaving

the Embankment pointed forlornly upwards, perhaps remembering the bluer skies of ancient He-

liopolis. But as we left the city’s outer fringe and entered the flat lands of Essex the elements

became more benign, and a dry and temperate day seemed more assured. En route there was the

traditional comfort stop at an inevitably soulless motorway services. Out of Essex we dropped

down into the Stour Valley and the county of Suffolk, the land of the southern people, lay before

us.

First stop in the county was the church of St Mary’s Chilton on the outskirts of Sudbury, and

on the edge of a modern industrial estate: a rather sad juxtaposition. Nonetheless on entering the

church the modern world slipped away and a more ancient one became apparent. This church is

now redundant, which always sounds such a harsh term, but it is in the charge of the Churches

Conservation Trust, and well loved by those who still care for it. One of these was our guide to

the church, Val Herbert, who used to live in the nearby Chilton Hall. The church has late-

fifteenth-century alabaster tombs for members of the Crane family, which rather resemble those

of the de la Poles at Wingfield.

Sudbury itself, a pleasant enough market town, had much to offer: Gainsborough’s birth

place, three fine churches, and streets with elegant Georgian facades. However for most of us its

restaurants were of more immediate concern; for it is true that Ricardians always give the appe-

tite priority over sight-seeing, although of course we usually try to satisfy both.

On then to Clare and its priory. We know its importance in the history of the House of York,

as Michael Jones explains in his book Bosworth – The Psychology of a Battle. Affront the main

priory building a noticeboard rather movingly tells us ‘founded 1248 – suppressed 1538 – re-

stored 1953’; a tribute perhaps to the retention of faith over the centuries and certainly a riposte

to Tudor dissolutionist tendencies. It is a remote and gentle place, and whilst much is now open

to the skies, it nevertheless retains a sense of its importance as a place of history and faith. The

House of York was directly descended from the de Clare family through the Mortimers. Amongst

the ruins of the old priory, in what was once the chapel of St Vincent, lie Joan of Acre (a daugh-

ter of Edward I), Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and his wife Elizabeth de Burgh; all ancestors of

Richard and Anne.

The Requiem Mass took place in the priory church which is dedicated to Our Lady of Good

Counsel and was celebrated by Father Bernard Rolls, the Prior of Clare. He entered the chapel to

the sound of the entrance antiphon sung in Latin plainchant by the choir, admirably led by John

Ashdown-Hill. The Mass was to be spoken and sung in English and Latin, with a touch too of

Greek. In his homily Father Bernard spoke of his early years living near Burgh-by-Sands in

53

Cumbria where Joan of Acre’s father died in 1307 and he recalled Joan’s life, her strong charac-

ter and the fact that she was not afraid to defy her powerful father. He told us about the relevance

of historical truth and, alluding to the Easter story, the triumph of life over death and the im-

portance of praying for the dead and remembering them. And that was why we were there at

Clare to honour the memory of Richard and Anne and their royal ancestors buried in the priory

grounds; and, in the words of the antiphon, to ask ‘requiem aeternam dona eis’: grant them eter-

nal rest.

Following the requiem we processed to the grounds of the ruined medieval priory and laid

baskets of flowering plants at the spots where the tombs of Joan, Lionel and Elizabeth once

stood. The flowers would later be planted in the priory grounds, to complement the roses given

when the Society last visited in 2004. The sites of the tombs are near to the plaque the Society

provided in 2002 to commemorate the three burials. It was particularly apt to commemorate Joan,

since she had died in childbirth at Clare in 1307, a few months before her father’s death. We

were therefore close to the seven-hundredth anniversary. She was certainly a feisty lady.

There was opportunity to explore the grounds further, for there are many features that are

worth seeing; in particular the shrine to Our Lady of Good Counsel, housed in one of the oldest

parts of the priory dating from fourteenth century. The shrine has a relief of the Mother of Good

Counsel based on the original fresco at Genazzano near Rome. Then it was time to retire inside

for refreshments kindly provided by the priory. It was a fine spread and in a relaxed atmosphere

we enjoyed the tea, the selection of cakes and much good conversation before the departure for

London and other parts.

Our thanks to all those involved in the organisation of the day; to Dave Perry for keeping the

coach in order and on time; to Father Bernard for his hospitality and of course to John Ashdown-

Hill; the ultimate mastermind of it all.

John Saunders

54

Future Society Events

Bookable Events

Bosworth 2008

Sunday 17 August 2008 This year our one-day visit to Bosworth comprises the traditional service in Sutton Cheney

Church, and visit to the Battlefield Centre, including tea. This year we will be able to visit the

completed new exhibition featuring:

Displays depicting medieval life, warfare in the medieval period, the history of the Wars of

the Roses and the birth of Tudor England.

An evolving battle room with a graphic re-telling of the events of August 22 1485.

Displays featuring the alternative theories regarding the site of the battle and setting out the

latest archaeological surveys, results and artifacts found as Leicestershire County Council

carries out a research programme to determine the battle location.

A new film about the Battle of Bosworth, the Wars of the Roses and the lives of Richard III

and Henry VII.

Costumed guides to talk visitors through the new exhibitions.

A timeline history of the Ambion Hill site covering the 5,000 years of human occupation.

In addition to the exhibition, it will also be possible to visit the Medieval Village, [‘Ambion Par-

va: a collection of reproduction buildings combined to create the sense of medieval village life

bringing history alive. The buildings on site include “Captains Retreat”, a two storey house with

jettied crossway; “Gunners Cottage”’ a cruck cottage and “The Old Salt Road Inn” a medieval

ale house. Foundations have been set for the construction of an Apothecary and many more

buildings are planned, including a church, barn and other workshops.’] and to walk the Battle-

field Trails. The Summer Medieval Festival and Battle Weekend will be taking place during the

weekend of 16 - 17 August. For more information see http://www.bosworthbattlefield.com/index.

htm

We hope that as many members as possible will attend during the day, as this is one of the

Society’s major social events and an occasion during the year when members from all over the

world can meet. Please also note that the Visits Committee is considering the format of the Bos-

worth event for future years, so this year may be the last occasion for some time to visit the Bat-

tlefield Centre. NB comments and suggestions with regard to the nature of the event would be

welcome – please contact me, at the address on the booking form or by e-mail: Eliza-

beth_nokes@hotmail.com.

Programme

09.15 Coach departs Embankment Underground Station (Embankment exit) 09.15 sharp

12.30 Memorial Service in Sutton Cheney Church, with Society wreath laying.

13.30 Lunch – bring packed lunch: picnic area available, or pub. Village Hall plough

man’s lunch will be available for those booking, and paying, in advance.

14.15 Coach leaves Sutton Cheney for Battlefield Centre

16.30 Tea in Tithe Barn restaurant at battlefield

17.45 Coach leaves Bosworth for London, arriving circa 20.15

Members attending independently on the day may book for such elements of the day as they

wish:

55

Cost for London Day Outing Coach (coach + battlefield entry + tea) = £32.00

Cost for Village Hall lunch = £5.00 [Please note: this is now pay in advance, rather than on the

day, to ensure that bookings are taken up, and that suppliers are not left out of pocket]

Cost for Tea only = £7.00

Please see booking form in centre pages.

Elizabeth Nokes

London Walk

Saturday 6 September 2008 We propose a walk through the part of London Richard would have known well. We hope to pay

a visit to St Helen’s Church, Bishopsgate. Crosby House, where Richard once lived, stood adja-

cent to the church which contains the tomb of Sir John Crosby, who built the house.

Val Alliez will be our guide and will lead us through the City Streets pointing out places of

particular interest to us. At Guildhall we hope to visit the Great Hall. The Crypt and Old Library

will not be open to us because there is a wedding reception in the afternoon.

We will then visit the St Paul’s area.

We hope to meet at Liverpool Street Station, Bishopsgate exit, to start the walk at 10.00 a.m.

The cost will be £5.50 per person; this is part Guide’s fee and part donation to St Helen’s

Church. Numbers are restricted to 30 persons. Please see the booking form in the centre pages.

Kitty Bristow

Norfolk Branch Study Day

Saturday 15 November 2008, The Assembly House, Theatre Street, Norwich

Inspirational Monarchs, Inspirational Leaders?

Programme 09.30 Coffee on arrival

09.55 Welcome to the study day

10.00 Edward I and Military Leadership, by Prof. Michael Prestwich, University of Durham

11.00 Coffee

11.30 Edward III and Inspirational Leadership, by Dr Michael K. Jones

12.30 Lunch Break

14.00 Contrasting styles of Kingship: Henry IV and Henry V, by Dr Michael K. Jones

15.00 Tea

15.30 The Lion and the Boar, Brothers in Arms - Edward IV and Richard III, by Dr Phil Stone

16.30 Question and Answer session

17.00 Vote of Thanks and Close

Cost £22.00.

Please see booking form in centre pages. Contact Mrs A. Hayek, 20 Rowington Rd, Norwich

NR1 3RR e-mail annmarie.hayek@onetel.net

Annmarie Hayek

Reminder and Late Bookings

Thaxted and Saffron Walden

Saturday 19 July 2008 There are still places available for this trip. Please see details and booking form in the spring Bul-

letin or contact Carolyn West, 6 Seaforth Court, Admirals Walk, Hoddesdon, Herts EN11 8AD,

tel 01992 414248, e-mail: Carolyn.west3@ntlworld.com.

56

Gloucester Branch Report Our programme has already provided some really enjoyable talks. In February Dr James Clark,

Senior Lecturer in Later Medieval History from Bristol University spoke on ‘Late Monasticism

and the Dissolution’. James has written many books on the subject and was able to convey a very

comprehensive overview of the culture of the monastic movement and the political climate which

devastated the foundations during the dissolution. The question-and-answer session which fol-

lowed proved extremely helpful in opening up various topics of particular interest to members.

Our next talk ‘The Kingship of Henry VII’ was given by Professor Ronald Hutton, also join-

ing us from Bristol University. Professor Hutton has a wide range of interests and is a regular

contributor on television programmes, particularly on the English Civil War. Again, the talk was

both impressive in content, highly original and thought-provoking. Delivered with some very

welcome humorous interjections, it prompted a long question-and-answer session which was

much appreciated by the attendees.

The Bristol Group have also held two recent meetings. Marcus Palmen provided a power-

point presentation on Benozzo Gozzoli. This featured an overview of Gozzoli’s life and work fol-

lowed by a more in-depth look at ‘The Procession of the Magus Gaspar’ from the Chapel of the

Palazzo Medici Ricardi, Florence. Marcus had completed extensive research on the background

and detail of the work to produce a very informative and superbly illustrated talk. The next meet-

ing took the form of an informal discussion on ‘Favourite Castles’. Always a popular format, the

group, on a somewhat chill winter evening, enjoyed a cosy, relaxing evening discussing various

medieval strongholds and viewing photographs taken during much sunnier times during the

warmer months.

Thanks entirely to Marcus Palmen we now have our own Gloucester Branch website up and

running. As Marcus has emphasised, we do need to ensure the content remains topical and is reg-

ularly updated with new articles and photographs so, hopefully, the Branch membership will pro-

vide a steady supply of items for Marcus to include. May I also take this opportunity to thank

John Ashdown-Hill for circulating details of the website to Society members by email – much

appreciated, John. I do hope many Society members will have a look at the website and, perhaps,

give us some ‘feedback’.

Forthcoming events:

Saturday 5 July Branch Meeting. The grandchildren of Henry VII. Informal

discussion.

The Donnellys, 18 Treelands Close, Leckhampton [01242 238790]

Friday 11 July Bristol Meeting. Shakespeare in the park: All’s Well That Ends

Well. Gala Night presentation from the exquisite private gardens of

Hazelbury Manor, Box, near Bath. Picnics from 6.30. Play begins at

8.00. £20 per ticket from Ruzi Buchanan. A special experience!

Saturday 11 October Branch Meeting & AGM. Talk by Dr Rosemary Horrox. ‘Richard III

and Parliament’ at Emmanuel Hall, Leckhampton

Keith Stenner Lincolnshire Branch Report The first event of the new season was a real treat. Joe David was a very interesting speaker and

brought lots of slides and memorabilia to illustrate his talk, ‘The Tower Within’. Tactfully he

skated over the Bloody Tower and the mention of the Princes and gave us a marvellous insight

Branches and Groups

57

into his life as a Yeoman Warder at the Tower of London. In November we visited Castle How-

ard, which was decorated for Christmas. The decorations were beautiful and there were plenty of

eating sites with homemade produce – very palatable. The weather was favourable so we were

able to enjoy the beautiful grounds too. The Christmas Dinner was a huge success. This was held

at The King’s Hotel in Grantham. It was well attended and the food and service was excellent,

thus bringing 2007 to a close.

2008 began with the members’ evening in January. Jean gave us a superb slide show on

‘Historic Royal Ghosts’ and then encouraged members to tell their own ghostly experiences.

There were some really spooky stories. Richard and Maureen Wheeldon won the prize for the

best story, with their account of a ‘time slip’ at the George in Southwark. In February we were

very pleased to welcome Dr Phil Stone who gave us an excellent talk on ‘Falcon, Fetterlocks,

Flowers and Fotheringhay’. The talk was very entertaining and the quality of Dr Stone’s slides

was much remarked upon. February also saw thirteen members visiting Stratford to see Richard

III. Unfortunately it was done in modern dress with henchmen carrying machine guns and RAF

Tornadoes flying over the Battle of Bosworth. Richard was also shown proof of the princes’ mur-

der by Tyrrell’s mobile phone!

The March meeting had to be altered at the last moment due to a family crisis for the speaker,

but Rowena was able to step in at the last minute and saved the day. Her talk on four notable me-

dieval women was excellent and her research into the lives of Abbess Hilda of Whitby, Julian of

Norwich, Margaret of Scotland and Marjorie Kemp was superb. The second Saturday in April

saw members speeding up the Great North Road to visit three contrasting churches at Kingston-

upon-Hull. Included in this was a guided tour of the city, which was extremely interesting. Hull

is a fine city, with some excellent museums and historic landmarks. Free time after lunch saw

many of us visiting ‘The Deep’ – a truly memorable experience.

So there you have it – an up to date account of our exploits. Our motto ‘when your feet hit the

floor keep running’ has certainly proved true so far. Watch this space!

Marion Moulton

London and Home Counties Branch Following the Annual General Meeting of the Branch in March 2008, the Branch committee con-

sists of: Acting Chair, Kitty Bristow; Vice-Chair, Howard Choppin; Secretary, Elizabeth Nokes;

Treasurer, Diana Lee; Comittee members, Joan Cooksley and Elaine Robinson.

Would all Branch members please note that it has been decided to discontinue publication of

‘The Crosby Chronicle’, and the next mailing you receive from the Branch will therefore be the

August Newsletter, available on the Bosworth visit or by post shortly thereafter. This will carry

news of the forthcoming meetings, and reviews of past meetings, along with the usual adminis-

trative notices. Members who would be prepared to receive the Newsletter by e-mail are most

welcome to contact me with their current e-mail address.

Elizabeth Nokes, Secretary

Mid Anglia Group Little Wenham Visit On Sunday 6 April eleven intrepid members of the Mid Anglia Group met at the Bypass Nursery,

Capel St Mary, Suffolk beneath a large blue and white golf umbrella, flying the white rose of

York (see picture). It was snowing. We then drove in convoy across a nearby field to reach Little

Wenham, which is now so little that it scarcely exists at all.

At Little Wenham we were greeted by the sight of the wonderful thirteenth-century manor

house, built of flint, dressed stone and large, early medieval white bricks by Hubert de Muchensy

between 1260 and 1280. The manor house, which is sometime called Little Wenham Castle, is, in

fact a perfectly preserved castle-in-miniature. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it was the

residence of the Debenham family, hence the reason for our visit. Gilbert Debenham esquire was

58

a member of the council of the Mowbray dukes of Norfolk, and his son, Sir Gilbert Debenham,

served Edward IV and Richard III. Sir Gilbert accompanied the exiled Yorkists to the Low Coun-

tries in 1470, and was one of the two knights sent ashore at Cromer by Edward IV in 1471 to

reconnoitre. Sir Gilbert may have fought for Richard at Bosworth. Certainly Henry VII deprived

him of all his offices in autumn 1485. Despite a subsequent pardon from the Tudor monarch, Sir

Gilbert later lent his support to Perkin Warbeck, for which he was attainted and all his lands con-

fiscated.

The manor house is not open to the public, so we had to be content with an outside view.

However, we had the key of the neighbouring church (now redundant), and were able to explore

the interior. The church is a single-celled building built at the same time as the manor house. It

had a stone rood screen until about 1820, when sadly the upper portion was pulled down. Fortu-

nately however, the unusual and rare thirteenth-century font, which was thrown out at the same

time, has been found, restored and reinstalled.

The church has a number of thirteenth-century murals. Opposite the door, as usual, was a

large painting of St Christopher, now somewhat fragmentary. However, the Virgin and Child, on

the north side of the altar, and the painting of St Margaret, St Catherine and St Mary Magdalene,

on the south side, are both well preserved. Against the south wall of the nave is a large four-

teenth-century tomb of an earlier Gilbert Debenham, which doubled as the Easter Sepulchre be-

fore the Reformation. Immediately before the altar is the fine brass of Sir Gilbert Debenham’s

sister and heiress, with her husband, Sir Thomas Brews (another Mowbray retainer). This couple

was allowed to buy back the Debenham family estates by Henry VII for £500, after Sir Gilbert

Debenham’s death.

The church was fascinating, but authentically medieval in being totally devoid of heat or

electricity. So, as the snow flurries continued, the hardy Mid Anglian Ricardians drove back

across the field to the Bypass Nursery, where all enjoyed a delicious tea – while keenly debating

how it was that the chairman’s slice of chocolate cake was twice as big as anyone else’s.

John Ashdown-Hill

59

New South Wales Branch - Richard III at Bundanoon The NSW Branch mini conference held on the weekend of 11-13April in the Southern Highlands

was an outstanding success thanks to the hard work in getting it together by Secretary Julia Red-

lich. A good crowd of Ricardians, some members and friends, others interested parties, travelled

from all points of the NSW compass. Robyn and Sarah Goldfinch had travelled for five hours

from Hunter Valley after researching our website. Sarah is specialising in Richard III for her

Higher School Certificate this year and I am sure that she now has plenty of material to complete

her studies. Kevin saw to that!

We all gathered in the comfortable lounge of the Bundanoon Hotel and, after, the welcome

from Nancy Sparrowhawk, we were treated to a viewing of a marvellously produced DVD of

Middleham Castle, as it is today and how it might have looked when Richard and Anne lived

there.

The break for morning tea gave us the chance to buy raffle tickets and find bargains at the

Bring and Buy table. Then we heard some great talks given by Dorothea Preis on Medieval Gar-

dens, Kevin Herbert on The Rise and Rise of the Nifty Nevilles and Carol Gerrard on Medieval

Soldiery. Excellent speakers with interesting subjects as always, with well-chosen illustrations.

After lunch there was a lively discussion on recommended Ricardian reading, with several

book reviews from Gillian Laughton, Babs Creamer (who sent her best wishes from the UK),

Dorothea Preis, Denise Rawlings and Johanna Visser. Then we heard a talk on Royal Bastards

delivered by Julia Redlich, always an entertaining topic as there are so many of them – including

the portrait of the final one using the strictly Australian meaning of the word.

Afternoon tea followed, then the raffle draw. There were some lovely prizes including the

cover of special Ricardian stamps from a limited edition, some Battle of Bosworth wine, and the

bottle of port, donated by Julia after winning it in the Heraldry Australia raffle in January.

A Meet the Press session followed, moderated by Carol Gerrard, with Ann Chandler as Prin-

cess Elizabeth of York in the ‘hot seat’ facing a gruelling inquiry from the panel of Margaret

Beaufort (Judith Hughes) the Duke of Norfolk (Kevin Herbert) Princess Cecily (Christena Daw-

son), Elizabeth Woodville (Margaret Shaw), Bishop Stillington (David Chandler) and Prince

Richard, Duke of York (Dorothea Preis).

Finally we had the results of the quiz that had been handed out at the beginning of the day

(those who have been trumped by Kevin in days of yore will be relieved to know that as a con-

tributor to the questions he wasn’t allowed to enter). And the winner, with an almost perfect

score was David Chandler.

Sadly, a few members had to journey home that evening due to prior commitments, but those

who stayed on (some dressed in their medieval finery) had dinner at the hotel. On the Sunday

morning more members departed for home, but others took advantage of the offered bus trip to

Fitzroy Falls, retail therapy in Berrima, and a delightful lunch on the veranda at Helen and Allan

Byrne’s tranquil property (and B&B) at Bundanoon.

Then it was back to the Bundanoon Hotel to pack our bags for home after a magnificent

weekend.

Llieda Wild

West Surrey Group Report A short report of recent happenings with our Group. In November, we were delighted to wel-

come John Saunders at Rollo’s house where he gave us a comprehensive talk on the background

of our Society, with a power point presentation of some amazing photographs of earlier days and

of people and events familiar to long-standing members, telling us of people whose dedication to

Richard III’s cause has laid the foundation for our now world-wide Society, which we hope will

eventually bring about, via education, a different impression of this much-maligned king. We

very much hope that John will visit us again later this year to tell us more.

60

December saw our now much looked-forward-to Christmas lunch, at a new venue this year,

the Lobster Pot near Farnham. This sounds like a seaside location but there were no sea breezes,

waves or lobster pots but a very pleasurable occasion, enjoyed by about 24 members and part-

ners. Sadly, this was also a farewell to Pat Hibbs and her family, who shortly afterwards moved

to Malvern (where, I am happy to say, she has joined the Worcestershire Branch). We shall all

miss the exciting medieval events which have taken place in her lovely garden during the past

few summers. Adieu, Pat, but we all look forward to visiting you in the not-too-distant future.

At our AGM in January, Richard our treasurer once again reassured us that our funds are still

in the black. Many suggestions were made for this year’s programme. Among them, we still have

hopes of visiting Bruges, although the Gruthuyse Museum – our main objective – seems to be

permanently undergoing refurbishment. We shall see! Another trip we plan to make in May is to

visit Newport to see the medieval ship which was dredged from the mud when foundations for

the new Civic Centre were being laid. It is now undergoing restoration and is occasionally open

for viewing by the public. We have planned a weekend visit to Stamford in August to see the

open-air performance of Richard the Third at Tolethorpe Hall, with possibly a look at Crowland

Abbey while we are so near. For July we are exploring the possibility of having a table at our

local Medieval Fair at Losely House (the home of the More-Molyneux family, descendants of

Thomas More). Watch this space for further news on these events.

In February we had another power-point presentation (this age of technology is marvellous,

isn’t it?) This time Dr Roger Joy, Chairman of the Katherine Swynford Society, spoke to us

about this fascinating lady, who, as John of Gaunt’s mistress (although later his Duchess) pro-

duced the Beauforts, thorns in the sides of the Yorkists during the Wars of the Roses.

Early in March we reviewed Geoffrey Richardson’s book The Deceivers and his theory that

Margaret Beaufort, Thomas Stanley and John Morton were cunningly responsible for many of

the events that led to Richard’s downfall. Like many other theories, it sounds very plausible.

What do other Ricardians think?

At the very end of March we had a reunion with Pat, when she joined five of us for a full and

enlightening weekend at the beautiful Madingley Hall, Cambridge, for a series of seven lectures

by Dr Rosemary Horrox on ‘The Yorkists’. Dr Horrox explained the making of the Plantage-

net/York/Lancastrian dynasty from the convoluted lives of the sons of Edward the Third until its

demise at Bosworth. She is a splendid and patient tutor and there was no question asked that she

was unable to answer fully and in great detail. This was a brilliant finale to our winter pro-

gramme.

Renee Barlow

Worcestershire Branch Report The first three meetings of the year have been some of the most interesting we have had recently.

Following on from Greta Lacey’s talk in January we were very pleased to welcome John Ash-

down-Hill to Worcestershire. He treated us to a fascinating afternoon talking about ‘Eleanor Tal-

bot – Lady of the Pre-contract’. The talk was supported by slides and the questions afterwards

reflected our interest in his subject. It was good to see some prospective new members at this

meeting too.

In March we spent a really enjoyable afternoon with Rebekah and Graeme Beale. They were

both resplendent in their costumes and Rebekah had prepared a super array of medieval foods for

us to sample. Graeme had set out his display of everyday items of a bowman, and other house-

hold things. We had chosen to have this meeting in the medieval barn that is now St Nicholas

Church Hall in Worcester and this proved to be an excellent setting for the display. Rebekah’s

talk was entitled ‘Richard Duke of York’ and was very informative. He came over as a very

strong but moral character and it showed where the better side of Richard III’s character had

come from. It was enlightening to hear that there is some evidence that Richard and Cecily were

together the night before he left for France and therefore Edward was probably not illegitimate.

61

Graeme described his life as a bowman and demonstrated items from his display. The arrow-

heads looked lethal and he told us that the soldiers would dip them in to dreadful things to make

them spread diseases among the opponents. They both described their costumes in great detail,

and the items they would carry on their belts. After the talk we enjoyed tasting the food and very

good it was too. The Brie Pie and Lentern Slices were probably the most popular. The kale soup

was a little less appetising, especially cold!

We are now looking forward to a summer of equally good outings and hoping for a little less

rain than last year.

Forthcoming events: 14 June A visit to Warwick with Ralph Richardson to see the Beauchamp Chapel,

Sheldon Chapel and Warwick Museum.

12-13 July We will be representing our Branch at the Tewkesbury Festival with a sales

stall, displays about the Branch and information about the Battle of Tewkes

bury.

9 August An evening visit to Kings Norton Grammar School, following up on our

January talk.

A few of us will also be at the Three Battles Event at The Guild Hall in Worcester in April.

This is a new joint venture by the various societies who promote and re-enact the battles of

Tewkesbury, Evesham and Worcester, and we have been invited to have a display stand for our

branch.

Details of our programme can be found on our branch web site www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk or

contact our Programme Planner Joan Ryder 01384 394228, for further information. We are al-

ways pleased to welcome friends and prospective members at any of our meetings.

Pat Parminter

Yorkshire Branch Report The Branch had a busy day at Towton Hall on Palm Sunday and members saw several of the

events with which the Towton Battlefield Society commemorated the battle of 1461. It was much

colder than last year but not quite as arctic as in 2006, and we did good business on our stall.

May I draw members’ attention to some new items of Branch merchandise, which first ap-

peared at Towton but are already proving popular. Short-sleeved white T-shirts in good-quality

cotton and bearing a design of the White Boar are available from Pauline Pogmore: further de-

tails from 0114 2811715 or yorkistrose2@hotmail.com. Adults’ sizes cost £5.99 and children’s

£3.50. Further designs are being considered, including the Sun-in-Splendour and King Richard’s

royal arms in full colour.

On St George’s Day, 23 April, the new Towton Battlefield Society Visitor Information Centre

was due to have its grand opening. It is situated in the grounds of the Crooked Billet pub, on the

road past Saxton to Towton village and Hall. In the field just opposite stands Lead chapel. The

Centre will display photos and information about various Wars of the Roses battlefields, not only

Towton, and about the TBS itself. It will be staffed on the third Sunday of every month from 11

a.m. to 3 p.m., or by appointment with Mr Mark Taylor (01302 882488 or chairman@towton.org.

uk), and at other times the key can be obtained from the Crooked Billet. Admission is free but

donations to the TBS are welcome.

On Sunday 8 June we have a choice of two events to attend, and I hope to report on these in

the autumn Bulletin. One is the all-day living history event at Manor Lodge, Sheffield, previously

referred to (spring Bulletin p.61), and the other is the Yorkshire Archaeological Society trip,

which this year goes to Howden Minster and Cawood castle in the East Riding. In connection

with this, I understand that the YAS are organising a trip later this summer to Harewood castle

near Leeds, which is the site of an ongoing archaeological survey by Ed Dennison Associates.

62

You may remember that the castle was the subject of our Branch lecture in 2006; public access to

the ruins has not been allowed for many years, so a chance to visit is welcome. For more infor-

mation, please contact Janet Senior at the YAS on 0113 245-7910.

The Branch’s Bosworth commemoration will take place on Sunday 24 August at 2 p.m. at St

Alkelda’s church, Middleham. As usual those attending hope to meet for lunch in Middleham

beforehand, and all members and friends are welcome. Please contact our Chairman Ralph Tay-

lor on 01274 545202 if you would like to join us, or come to the church for 2 o’clock. Our com-

memoration is informal: following a reading of King Richard’s prayer, an arrangement of white

flowers is placed below the window dedicated by the Richard III Society in the 1930s. We were

glad to see some new faces last year and hope that some more of you will pay a first visit to Mid-

dleham on this day.

Our AGM is scheduled for Saturday 6 September at 1.30 p.m. (sharp!) at our usual venue,

Wheatlands Hotel, Scarcroft Road, York. Again, do consider coming along if you haven’t yet

done so: the more input we have from members into future Branch events, the more successful

these should be. So even if you have a particular grouse about the Branch, come along and tell us

(politely). A booking form for tea at the AGM should go out with our August Newsletter.

Angela Moreton

Branch & Group Contacts - Update

New Zealand Robert Smith, ‘Wattle Downs,’ 61 Udy Street, Greytown,

New Zealand. E-mail: rob.helen.smith@xtra.co.nz or

secrtary@richard3nz.org Web site www.richard3nz.org

North East Mrs J. Mclaren E-mail: jumikmac@yahoo.co.uk

Mid Anglia Web site: www.freewebs.com/r3midanglia/

Western Australia Web site: http://members.iinet.net.au/~hhardegen/

Worcestershire Web site: www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk

To succeed Hastings once again needed to

work with the Woodvilles, as he had on nu-

merous occasions before. Certainly Hastings’

own political survival was at stake but I be-

lieve he had the strength of character to take

responsibility for his actions, which he felt he

could justify, and would not have cast the

blame on the Woodvilles.

The events of 13 June 1483 were a trage-

dy because with Stillington’s secret disclosed,

it was a no-win situation between Hastings

and Richard. They been friends and comrades

for all of Richard’s adult life and Hastings

paid the ultimate price because Richard could

not countenance Hastings’ loyalty to what he

considered a flawed cause. He expected no

better from the other conspirators and his

contempt for them meant their mere impris-

onment.

1 There has been much discussion on a medi-

eval genealogy website regarding Hastings

possible royal descent. Whilst further re-

search would be useful, I would still support

the view that he was descended from the

Mortimers.

The background to the life and career of Lord

Hastings together with a detailed study of the

events leading up to 13 June 1483 are covered

in ‘William, Lord Hastings, and the Crisis of

1483: An Assessment’ by Wendy EA Moor-

hen, The Ricardian, September 1993 pp. 446-

466 and December 1993, pp. 482-497.

Continued from p. 46

63

Peter Ryan The New South Wales Branch is very sad to report the death of Peter Ryan, briefly chairman in

the 1980s and long time member. He died from a heart attack at the age of 54. Peter was a librari-

an at Sydney City Council for over 35 years and author of City Info. He also ran the library ser-

vice for borrowers who were housebound. His great love was the theatre and he was an actor

with the Genesian Theatre for most of his life. For many years he played Santa at the Sydney

Opera House. Our branch remembers him for bringing along some of his actor colleagues and

helping us put on scenes from Shakespeare's Richard III (as well as more kindly scripts). We also

treasure the memory of his beautiful voice reading the lesson at a Bosworth service in St An-

drews Cathedral. He was a genial, amiable man and his many friends will miss him greatly.

Isolde Martyn

John Stapley John was the husband of Shirley Stapley, a founding member of the Devon and Cornwall Branch.

He passed away on 18 April this year after a courageous fight against cancer. Over the years John

supported Shirley’s work for the branch, accompanying her on visits and providing the transport

to get her to meetings. He was well liked by all branch members and will be very much missed.

We extend our sympathy to Shirley and her family.

John Saunders

Obituaries

Recently Deceased Members

Miss Joyce Davis, Aviston, Nottinghamshire

Mr Douglas Coyne, Gloucestershire (an obituary will appear in the autumn Bulletin)

Dr Kenneth R Green, Cottingham, East Yorkshire

Mrs H Kingston, Sapcote, Leicestershire

Miss Iris Woolford, Chelmsford, Essex

that the Queen is not prepared to sanction a further examination of the bones at the present time.

Whilst the situation is frustrating from our point of view, it is one that the Society needs to ac-

cept. However, it should be noted that whilst the DNA of the bones could be compared between

the two sets of bones to establish a filial relationship it would also be necessary for them to be

compared to a close family member to establish that they were the sons of Edward IV. The DNA

could be compared with that of their father or mother, but it would then require the disturbance of

tombs at St George’s Chapel Windsor. An alternative would be to compare the bones’ DNA with

a direct female descendant of the Woodville family, i.e. of Jacquetta, Countess Rivers, aka Duch-

ess of Bedford and John Ashdown-Hill is leading a project to trace the mitochondrial DNA

through the direct female line of Jacquetta’s family. John was successful in finding a latter day

descendant of Cecily, Duchess of York (in connection with his researches on Margaret, Duchess

of Burgundy) but he has yet to establish the DNA of a Woodville descendant. We wish him every

success with his research.

Continued from p. 44

64

Calendar We run a calendar of all forthcoming events: if you are aware of any events of Ricardian inter-

est, whether organised by the Society – Committee, Visits Committee, Research Committee,

Branches/Groups – or by others, please let Lynda Pidgeon have full details, in sufficient time for

entry. The calendar will also be run on the website, and, with full details, for members, on the

intranet.

Date Events Originator

2008

16 - 27 June The Ricardian Rover, Travels with Richard III American Branch

7 June Visit to Fotheringhay and Nassington Visits Committee

21 June East Midlands Study Day, Peasantry, Gentry & East Midlands

Nobility, Leicester Branch

19 July Visit to Thaxted and Saffron Walden Visits Committee

17 August Bosworth Memorial Service and Visit Visits Committee

to Battlefield

6 September London Walk Visits Committee

4 October AGM in York Jane Trump

15 November Norfolk Branch Study Day, Inspirational Monarchs, Norfolk Branch

Inspirational Leaders

6 December Scotland Branch Lecture, Edinburgh Scotland Branch

13 December Fotheringhay Carol Service Phil Stone

2009

14 March Annual Requiem Mass, Church of Our Lady John Ashdown-Hill

and the English Martyrs, Cambridge

27-29 March Study Weekend in York Wendy Moorhen

10-14 July Long Weekend Visit Visits Committee

South Wales, based in Swansea