JackieLondon

I know, he sent me there himself. When I find the time, I am definitely going to kick back and read his work. I can't get enough of this time period, so I'm very interested to see his perspective on the different events and how they played out. ^^ Thanks, Crystal!

halomanuk

Yes SPERRO has done himself proud with his blogs on Richard and the War of the Roses,totally agree.

Crystal Rainbow

I have put a mention for essay of the year.

Von Ranke

I noticed yesterday that Sperro and Jackielondon touched on a discussion on the appearance of Richard 111 on Halomanuk's Perkin Warbeck thread. Perhaps we can continue it here without the threat of a derail. As you may know we have a contemporary description of Richard by the German Knight Nicholas Von Poppelau who visited England in 1484 he describes him thus:

He was "Three fingers taller than himself, but a little thinner, and not so thick set. he had delicate arms and legs and also a great heart"

No mention of the elephant in the room. If Richard was this deformed creature as described by Rous and later Shakespeare, significant contributors to the Tudor tradition, one would suppose Rous would have mentioned it in his diary. Then there is the painting of Richard in the National Portrait Gallery which eminent art historians have described as having been doctored to make his shoulder and back look exaggerated physically by adding an extra link on his chain:



All this suggests to me that Richard's appearance was normal but he was a little on the thin side. Von Popplau's mention of Richard having "a great heart"does support what is known about him. He fought with distinction at Barnet and Tewkesbury, he faced down the Stanleys in the Midlands who had a much larger retinue than himself and he personally took out Sir John Brandon and Sir William Cheyney in the fatal charge at Bosworth. It is hard to reconcile a brave man, as he clearly was, with the chid killing monster he may have been.

halomanuk

Very good points there Von Ranke,and of course he more than likely,in fact i think it's fair to say that he would have,beaten Henry VII at Bosworth if it wasnt for the Stanley's choosing to join Henry.


But yes also i agree about the appearance of Richard.He was as normal as anyone as far as i can see.There is no mention of any disability or abnormality before the Tudor age.
This is something that would have definately been mentioned or scribed somewhere at some point.
For there to be totally nothing is an answer in itself IMO.

Von Ranke

I think that is a reasonable assumption to make Halo but as usual it leads to another question. Why did the magnates like the Stanleys turn on Richard, and why did Northumberland hang back in the rear when his participation could have been decisive?

halomanuk

Well i do know that Lord Stanley himself was Henry VII's step-father and that he and Richard did not get on the same way that he had with Edward IV.
That may have been something to do with it.

As for Northumberland i'm not sure,maybe he was hedging his bets to see what the Stanley's would do.

Brunel

It's a myth that the Stanleys changed sides during the battle. They had been against Richard before the Battle of Bosworth. They supported, by and large, the Lancastrians.

One exception was William Stanley, who was a staunch Yorkist. He fought on the Yorkist side at the Battle of Blore Heath in 1459. Because of this, in 1465 he was granted the Skipton lands and castle of the dispossessed Lancastrian Cliffords by Edward IV.

In 1471, he fought on the Yorkist side in the Battle of Tewkesbury, after which he captured Margaret of Anjou, who led the Lancastrian faction. Because of this he was made a Knight Banneret by Edward IV.

After Richard III came to the throne he was awarded more land in North Wales for his loyal services.

However, by 1485, William decided to join the rest of his family and sided with the Lancastrians. He did this before the Battle of Bosworth.

Therefore, when Henry Tudor landed in Wales in 1485 to take the Throne of England, William and the rest of the Stanleys - who had been communicating with the exiled Henry for some time - supported him.

In fact, Tudor's strategy of landing in Wales and heading east into central England depended on the acquiescence of William Stanley, as Chamberlain of Chester and north Wales, and by extension on that of Lord Stanley himself.

Despite this, Richard ordered the two Stanleys - William and his brother Thomas, 1st Earl of Derby, to raise the men of the region in readiness to oppose the invader Henry.

Once it was clear that Henry Tudor was marching unopposed through Wales, Richard ordered Thomas Stanley to join him without delay. According to the Crowland Chronicle, although Lord Stanley excused himself on the grounds of illness, Richard had firm evidence of the Stanleys' complicity.

In the run up to the battle, three allied forces followed each other into the midlands: Lord Stanley and his forces; then Sir William Stanley; and finally Henry Tudor and a host comprising Tudor retainers, dispossessed Lancastrian exiles and many men of Wales and Cheshire. Lord Stanley may have secretly met with Henry on the eve of the battle, but when the Stanleyites arrived south of the village of Market Bosworth on 22 August they took up a position independent of both the royal forces and the rebel army.

According to Wikipedia:

In effect, the two brothers played similar roles to those they had played at the Battle of Blore Heath over a quarter of a century earlier. Lord Stanley kept his powder dry, taking no direct part in the action but stood unmoving between the two armies and it was Sir William's decisive intervention that gave Henry the victory. After the despatch of Richard, who had gone into battle crowned, Polydore Vergil records that the fallen coronet was retrieved and placed by Lord Stanley on his stepson’s head before his cheering troops, thereby emphasing the critical role the Stanleys had played in bringing Henry Tudor to the throne
.

Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JackieLondon

Wow! Fascinating information, Brunel. I know so little of the Stanleys, but they seem like fascinating people and I always welcome any new tidbits about them. I don't believe I ever heard the myth of their changing sides debunked; I'll have to at the very least research this. Thank you so much!


Your point about the alterations to a portrait of Richard are true, but that particular image is one of the many copies. That is not the original - the original has been long lost, but the oldest one still surviving looks like
I'm not certain if this ruins your contention or not, I just felt the need to nitpick. Sorry...

Von Ranke

Well spotted Jackie, that is why I am here to learn. It does not really harm my contention but it just goes to show there is no fool like an old fool.