Page 1 of 1

BBC History Magazine

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:26 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
"Revealed the real reason why Richard III was butchered at the battle of Bosworth" (again) an article by David Hipshon who has a new idea as to what might have led the Stanleys into betraying Richard and the historian and novelist Robert Irwin lists Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl of Rivers as his history hero.
It always strikes me a odd that the same people who will rant on about the vile Tudor propaganda that has slandered Richard III are happy to accept and use the vile Yorkist/Ricardian/Neville propaganda that slanders the Woodvilles.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:57 pm
by Jim Smith
Woodville=money-grubbing parvenu.

The rest= ruthless 'it's my land/title and i'm damn well keeping it" old money.

Massively simplistic of course, but then in late C15 England nice people really did finish last (and possibly dead).

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:36 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
No I think it's because if you are slathering at the mouth because of the injustice done to Saint Richard of Gloucester than you have to go along with the Woodvilles being money grabbing scum.
And way too many people accept what that Sharon woman wrote in the Sun in Splendour as being historical fact rather than historical (and in some places hysterical) fiction.
Which wouldn't be so bad if they did a bit of research around the subject and read about it once in a while.

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 pm
by Jim Smith
Ah yes, The Sunne in Splendour, aka history as the Richard III Society would like it to have been. Richard was probably no better and no worse than many other senior magnates of the time.

As for the Woodvilles, if one's sister had married the King, most of us would probably have our noses well into the trough as well. The Woodvilles attracted so much bad PR because there were so many of them and they all wanted the top jobs... you know, the ones that the Old Money thought were rightfully theirs!

The best thing about the Sunne in Splendour, though, is the reference to Greater London. Until I read that book, I hadn't realised that particularly geographic demarcation had been around for so long. You live and learn...

Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:18 pm
by The Methley Archer
Marcus Woodhouse Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:36 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I think it's because if you are slathering at the mouth because of the injustice done to Saint Richard of Gloucester than you have to go along with the Woodvilles being money grabbing scum.
And way too many people accept what that Sharon woman wrote in the Sun in Splendour as being historical fact rather than historical (and in some places hysterical) fiction.
Which wouldn't be so bad if they did a bit of research around the subject and read about it once in a while.
You mean it's not fact. I'm gutted :(

Re: BBC History Magazine

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:26 am
by Chris, yclept John Barber
Marcus Woodhouse wrote:"Revealed the real reason why Richard III was butchered at the battle of Bosworth" (again) an article by David Hipshon who has a new idea as to what might have led the Stanleys into betraying Richard and the historian and novelist Robert Irwin lists Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl of Rivers as his history hero.
It always strikes me a odd that the same people who will rant on about the vile Tudor propaganda that has slandered Richard III are happy to accept and use the vile Yorkist/Ricardian/Neville propaganda that slanders the Woodvilles.
I don't see the connection. Two writers, separately producing two articles, which happen to appear in the same issue of a magazine, can't be used to claim that anyone who 'supports' one side of the argument is using the propaganda of the other side.

In this case, we have one article which details the interaction of Richard and the Stanleys, positing that he offended them by getting his friends' snouts in the trough in an attempt to restrict the power of the existing great landowners (the Stanleys and Northumberland, both of whom then let him down at Bosworth). That's what most Kings tried to do - for many years Richard was doing it on behalf of his brother the King, which set up their animosity even before he came to the throne. As far as I can remember (I'm at work now and the magazine's at home), the Woodvilles aren't even mentioned.

The other article is by someone who admires Anthony Woodville for his artistic and literary gifts. Once again my memory may be faulty (it takes several readings for something to really sink in with me! :) ) but I don't remember any real emphasis on the political events of the time.

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:15 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
I didn't say that anyone did-there is no connection except the one you created in your mind.

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:08 pm
by Jim Smith
Marcus Woodhouse wrote:I didn't say that anyone did-there is no connection except the one you created in your mind.
OK, but it could be said that you'd inferred/implied such.

Re: BBC History Magazine

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:36 pm
by Ghost
Marcus Woodhouse wrote:"Revealed the real reason why Richard III was butchered at the battle of Bosworth" (again) an article by David Hipshon who has a new idea as to what might have led the Stanleys into betraying Richard
Surely betrayal signifies at some point loyalty was present - I think you would be hard pushed to find any evidence for that apart from lip service. The two were at each others throat long before Bosworth.

For instance in 1470 Gloucester was granted the manors of Hatton and Clitheroe where Stanley held the principle office. The resulting feud resulted in Richard mustering retainers at Preston intent on burning down the Stanley mansion at Lathom. The two private armies clash at Ribble Bridge with Stanley the victor. Richard's banner was captured and remained as a trophy in Wigan church until 1510.

Stanley was, in my opinion, simply a man able to correctly spot the shifts in the politics of the time, back the right horse (so to speak) and exploit the situation for his own end - just like the rest, with some better at it than others. Anybody who thinks the supporters of the Yorkist faction did it for honour, fairness, loyalty and to put the true king on the throne are under an illusion - they did it because they saw it as a way of surplanting those nobles who held higher office in the Lancastrian. All about money and greed I'm afraid.

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:45 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
The De Vere family and William Hastings being exceptions rather than the rule. Mind you Richard had it in for Hastings as well didn't he.

Re: BBC History Magazine

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:27 pm
by Colin Middleton
Ghost wrote:Surely betrayal signifies at some point loyalty was present - I think you would be hard pushed to find any evidence for that apart from lip service. The two were at each others throat long before Bosworth.
Doesn't the fact the one of them is King and the other subject imply some loyalty, at least enought to betray?

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:33 pm
by Colin Middleton
Marcus Woodhouse wrote:The De Vere family and William Hastings being exceptions rather than the rule. Mind you Richard had it in for Hastings as well didn't he.
Never was able to work out why Dickon kills Hastings. I'm sure that there must be a very important discussion lost in history there...

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:14 pm
by Ghost
Never was able to work out why Dickon kills Hastings. I'm sure that there must be a very important discussion lost in history there
Because he would have stopped, or at least attempted to stop, Richard from removing the Princes from the hereditary line. Also he was a rich source of land and offices; once he killed him he had a rich source of rewards that he was able to dish to his own supporters to further prop up his regime.

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:22 pm
by Colin Middleton
I know that Dickon wasn't a master politician, but isn't that a bit of a brutally obvious move? You'd think that he could find a more subtle way to get rid of him. That's what makes me suspect that something happened to force his hand so quickly.

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:19 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
Twas the wythchry that did shrvyel his arm.
And if that's good enough for a king to claim it's good enough for me.
Sorry boss I can't do any more work today, one of the kids has cursed me and caused me arm to shrivel up. Best if we execute the lot of them.
In most of the books I have read the assumption is that Hastings was realising that Richard was not going to stop at just removing Lord Rivers from power.
What gets me is that he (Hastings) could have been so naive as to imagine there would ever be any way for the three of them (Hastings, Gloucester and Buckingham) to survive without taking full control and deposing Edward V.
But then a wise man has hindsight in advance.