Anniversary of a Death

I can't let the anniversary of the death of my favorite monarch go by without a post. This is copied from my post on the anniversary last year.

Richard III (Oct 2, 1452 - Aug 22, 1485)

On this day in 1485, the most maligned King in English history was killed at the Battle of Bosworth field. He was betrayed by some of his lords and was "piteously slain and murdered" (as is recorded in the York City records), paving the way for the usurper Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond (Henry VII). Thus began the Tudor Dynasty, based on a very weak and illegitimate claim to the throne, and the complete destruction of Richard's reputation.

The battle was mainly a hand-to-hand encounter (which was typical of the times), with the Stanley family (who had promised Tudor that they would desert Richard) keeping away from the fight until, at a critical moment when it was obvious which way the victory was headed, they joined Tudor. Richard, realizing that he was betrayed, cried out, "Treason, treason!" He knew he'd either leave as the King of England or dead and refused to leave the field until, overpowered by numbers, he fell dead in the middle of his enemies. He came very close to dispatching his enemy, Henry Tudor, killing his standard barer, William Brandon (the father of Henry VIII's close friend, Charles Brandon). Even his enemies had to admit that he fought with courage (Tudor's historian even wrote that "King Richard, alone, was killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies"). The crown was supposedly picked up on the field of battle and placed by Sir William Stanley on the head of Tudor, who was at once proclaimed king by the whole army. After the battle Richard's body was taken to Leicester, carried naked across a horse's back, and buried without honor in the church of the Greyfriars. His death was the end of the Plantagenet Dynasty which had ruled England since the succession of Henry II in 1154. In a twist which can tell us a lot about the man who benefited from Richard's death, Tudor dated his reign from the day BEFORE the battle so he could charge all the men who had fought for an anointed and crowned king with treason.

Richard most likely was not the villain that his enemies made him out to appear. He had good qualities (and bad qualities), both as a man and a ruler, and seemed to have a sound judgment of political needs (he had been able to keep the North of England in peace for his brother). In testament to those ideas, a historian of the time, John Rous said he was a "good lord" and had a "great heart" (though he changed his tune once Tudor was on the throne). And the city of York, after hearing of Richard's defeat at Bosworth, risked the fury of the new monarch by entering into it's city council records "king Richard late mercifully reigning upon us ... was piteously slane murdred to the grete hevynesse of this citie." However, it is impossible to convict or clear him of the deaths of his nephews, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, in the Tower of London. He was not a monster but a typical man in an age of strange contradictions of character, an age of refined (for the day) culture mixed with horrible cruelty, and he possessed an emotional temper that was capable of anything (he was a Plantagenet after all).  After his defeat at Bosworth, Tudor and his supporters needed to solidify his claim to the throne and what better way to do that than to make the English people think that the King he replaced was a deformed, evil monster who killed his own nephews? No one did more to cement that belief than William Shakespeare with his play Richard III (Undoubtedly writing to please the Tudors but getting HIS information from Thomas Moore who was only 5 when the events actually occurred; Moore's information came from Bishop Morton, who hated Richard.). They were hugely successful in their endeavors and, unfortunately, this view of Richard stuck until probably the 20th century when scholars really began to study him. Tradition represents Richard as a hunchback but there were no contemporary accounts of him being "deformed." The discovery of Richard's skeleton under the car park in Leicester proved that he was NOT a hunchback (like Shakespeare made everyone believe) but

had scoliosis, which made his fighting ability that much more amazing as he was probably in quite a lot of pain. The discovery also showed that he had multiple wounds all over his body (including one on his "backside") that shows that his body was not treated with any dignity. While the discovery of his body can't confirm or deny the story that he murdered his nephews, it certainly shows that not everything that has been handed down through history is exactly accurate. If Shakespeare's hunchbacked Richard wasn't true, what else may not be true? Many have popped up in the last few months questioning the dig and discovery by the University of Leicester, saying, among other things, that the entire dig was a hoax and this isn't Richard's body. I for one believe that it IS the last York King of England and am looking forward to his reburial in Leicester Cathedral next year.

Loyaulte me lie

Richard III, Last Plantagenet King of England

Richard III (Oct 2, 1452 - Aug 22, 1485)

On this day in 1485, the most maligned King in English history was killed at the Battle of Bosworth field. He was betrayed by some of his lords and was "piteously slain and murdered" (as is recorded in the York City records), paving the way for the usurper Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond (Henry VII). Thus began the Tudor Dynasty, based on a very weak and illegitimate claim to the throne, and the complete destruction of Richard's reputation.

The battle was mainly a hand-to-hand encounter (which was typical of the times), with the Stanley family (who had promised Tudor that they would desert Richard) keeping away from the fight until, at a critical moment when it was obvious which way the victory was headed, they joined Tudor. Richard, realizing that he was betrayed, cried out, "Treason, treason!" He knew he'd either leave as the King of England or dead and refused to leave the field until, overpowered by numbers, he fell dead in the middle of his enemies. He came very close to dispatching his enemy, Henry Tudor, killing his standard barer, William Brandon (the father of Henry VIII's close friend, Charles Brandon). Even his enemies had to admit that he fought with courage (Tudor's historian even wrote that "King Richard, alone, was killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies"). The crown was supposedly picked up on the field of battle and placed by Sir William Stanley on the head of Tudor, who was at once proclaimed king by the whole army. After the battle Richard's body was taken to Leicester, carried naked across a horse's back, and buried without honor in the church of the Greyfriars. His death was the end of the Plantagenet Dynasty which had ruled England since the succession of Henry II in 1154. In a twist which can tell us a lot about the man who benefited from Richard's death, Tudor dated his reign from the day BEFORE the battle so he could charge all the men who had fought for an anointed and crowned king with treason.

Richard most likely was not the villain that his enemies made him out to appear. He had good qualities (and bad qualities), both as a man and a ruler, and seemed to have a sound judgment of political needs (he had been able to keep the North of England in peace for his brother). In testament to those ideas, a historian of the time, John Rous said he was a "good lord" and had a "great heart" (though he changed his tune once Tudor was on the throne). And the city of York, after hearing of Richard's defeat at Bosworth, risked the fury of the new monarch by entering into it's city council records "king Richard late mercifully reigning upon us ... was piteously slane murdred to the grete hevynesse of this citie." However, it is impossible to convict or clear him of the deaths of his nephews, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, in the Tower of London. He was not a monster but a typical man in an age of strange contradictions of character, an age of refined (for the day) culture mixed with horrible cruelty, and he possessed an emotional temper that was capable of anything (he was a Plantagenet after all).  After his defeat at Bosworth, Tudor and his supporters needed to solidify his claim to the throne and what better way to do that than to make the English people think that the King he replaced was a deformed, evil monster who killed his own nephews? No one did more to cement that belief than William Shakespeare with his play Richard III (Undoubtedly writing to please the Tudors but getting HIS information from Thomas Moore who was only 5 when the events actually occurred; Moore's information came from Bishop Morton, who hated Richard.). They were hugely successful in their endeavors and, unfortunately, this view of Richard stuck until probably the 20th century when scholars really began to study him. Tradition represents Richard as a hunchback but there were no contemporary accounts of him being "deformed." The discovery of Richard's skeleton under the car park in Leicester proved that he was NOT a hunchback (like Shakespeare made everyone believe) but

had scoliosis, which made his fighting ability that much more amazing as he was probably in quite a lot of pain. The discovery also showed that he had multiple wounds all over his body (including one on his "backside") that shows that his body was not treated with any dignity. While the discovery of his body can't confirm or deny the story that he murdered his nephews, it certainly shows that not everything that has been handed down through history is exactly accurate. If Shakespeare's hunchbacked Richard wasn't true, what else may not be true?

Loyaulte me lie

Mailbox Monday - March 19, 2012

Mailbox Monday is now on tour! It is being hosted this month by Diary of an Eccentric. To find out more about the history of Mailbox Monday and a list of future hosts visit the Mailbox Monday site.

Mailbox Monday is a gathering place for readers to share the books that came into their house last week and explore great book blogs. Warning: Mailbox Monday can lead to envy, toppling TBR piles, and humongous wish lists!

Two new ones this week!

Rose of York: Love and War, Sandra Worth

This is book one in the author's York trilogy and I've been waiting for over a year to get to the top of the waiting list on Paperbackswap.com so I could read this book. Now to wait for the other ones...







The Three Colonels, Jack Caldwell

I received this one for review from Sourcebooks. It is about some of Austen's "fighting men" and looks pretty interesting.

Cecily Neville - A Guest Post by Anne Easter Smith

Historical Fiction Virtual Book Tours is celebrating the new release by Anne Easter Smith Queen by Right and I was honored to have the author supply a guest post on the main character in this novel, Cecily Neville!

I have been intrigued by Cecily Neville since enjoying Sharon Kay Penman’s Sunne in Splendour almost twenty years ago. She never appeared in my first book, A Rose for the Crown, but you could almost imagine her imposing presence every time I mentioned her. Some of my favorite scenes in Daughter of York were between Margaret and her mother, and it occurred to me that after three books describing the lives of her children and grandchildren, that I should go back to the beginning of the York family in the Wars of the Roses and tell their parents’ story.

The Hundred Years War between England and France was still raging when Cecily Neville was born at Raby Castle in County Durham. Dubbed “the Rose of Raby,” Cecily is the twenty-second and youngest child of Ralph Neville, the powerful Earl of Westmorland, and also cousin to the boy king, Henry VI. Cecily’s fate becomes entwined with the king’s when she is betrothed to her father’s ward, Richard Plantagenet, the orphaned duke of York, whose claim to the throne is arguably stronger than young Henry’s.

Believe it or not, there is very little written about Cecily that is not incorporated in biographies of the men of the period, but most of those portray her as proud, intelligent, and strong-willed. The second nickname that has come to be associated with her is Proud Cis. She was known for her reclusiveness and piety in the last 20 years of her life, and so I have tried to imagine what caused her to shut herself away. True, it was quite common for widows to retire to an abbey (like Elizabeth Woodville), but I chose to use a few life-changing experiences of Cecily’s that might have made her turn to God later in her life. I hope I have been true to the information we have about her.

I never did find the origin of either of her nicknames, but they are everywhere in the secondary sources down the centuries. It told me that Cecily must have been very beautiful, and it also told me she was not someone who suffered fools gladly. I have tried to show that she had a public side where she maintained a cool and aloof exterior and a softer yet passionate side when she was with her family. Unfortunately the personal feelings of most of historical people from that time are not recorded anywhere, except in letters, and even those are stilted and formal to our way of thinking. But it is believed by historians that Cecily and Richard had one of the few love matches among the nobility of the 15th century, and I tried to find reasons for this in my research. The fact that Cecily did insist on following Richard around so much instead of staying meekly at home with the children told me that they enjoyed being together. I also thought it was unusual for a wife to plead personally on behalf of her husband to the king on two occasions, which showed me how devoted she was. And when Richard landed in Wales after almost a year of exile in Ireland in1460, he immediately called for Cecily to join him even though the king’s forces were attempting to thwart Richard’s progress towards London and it could have been dangerous. It seemed to me husband and wife could not bear to be parted a moment longer, and Cecily joined him only a few days later leaving her children in London.

I try and stay true to those known facts about a character, and it is known Cecily was quite pious especially later in life. However, it is fair to say most medieval people of any learning did a lot of praying and were always concerned for their immortal souls. A man might commit adultery or order a murder one moment but be at the confessional the next being given a penance and telling his rosary. Religious ritual was a daily part of everyone’s life. Because it is a known fact about Cecily, I used the spiritual side of her life as a theme in the book.

For more information please visit Anne Easter Smith’s WEBSITE and FACEBOOK PAGE.

Thank you again to Anne Easter Smith for her post! I can not wait to read this newest story about the York family!

This Day in History...

Catching up on a few days over the weekend!

October 2, 1452 - The future Richard III is born at Fotheringay Castle.

October 3, 1283 - Welsh prince (brother to Llywelyn the Last) Dafydd ap Gruffydd is executed by Edward I. He is probably the first person to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.

October 4, 1160 - Princess Alys of France, daughter of Louis VII, was born. She would be betrothed to Prince Richard (Richard the Lionheart) for almost twenty years and possibly was his father Henry II's mistress at one point.

October 4, 1535 - Miles Coverdale, a London printer, published his English version of the Bible.

October 4, 1582 - Pope Gregory XIII implements the Gregorian calendar. In several European countries this day is followed by October 15.

This Day in History...

February 17, 1461 - Lancastrians defeat Yorkists in the second battle of St. Albans. Margaret of Anjou and her army are barred from London and a couple days later Edward of York and Warwick enter London and Edward is proclaimed Edward IV.

This Day in History...

November 23, 1499 - Perkin Warbeck, an impostor claiming to be Richard, Duke of York (son of Edward IV), and the rightful King of England, was hanged at Tyburn.