Um, What?

Today is the birthday of Richard III, but that's not why I'm posting.

Since writing last time about outside 3rd parties stirring things up between the Duke of Gloucester & the Woodvilles, I keep thinking about one thing over & over & over.

Now, I am an attorney & have been for quite some time, so I know that it's never a good idea to hire or bring into your inner circle, someone who was the attorney for another who at one point was on the other side of the same dispute.  Today, doing such a thing can get you disbarred if you, as an attorney, do it. (Yeah yeah yeah, you can get the client to sign a waiver, but ha ha ha, joke's on you because word will get around & what's that thing Shakespeare says about "who steals my purse steals trash?" As an attorney, your reputation is your calling card. Get known for being a Stanley, I mean, turncoat, & good luck finding people to retain you. Believe it or not, there are not that many stupid people in this world. It just seems like it sometimes, especially during Rush Hour.)

Which brings us to Sir William Catesby.  He was Hastings' lawyer. Yeah, THAT Hastings, who was loyal to Edward IV, but had conflicts with the Woodvilles in court, & was then loyal to Richard III, until he wasn't.  In addition to being Hastings' lawyer, Catesby was on the Council of Edward V, & Richard appoints him to his council when he becomes king & then gives him all sorts of titles & honors.  Um, what? I think to myself when I learn this little tidbit.  Putting so much trust in Catesby just screams "BAD IDEA!"

It makes me wonder just what the blast was really going on in 1483, because if Richard was truly the evil, manipulative, calculating, plotting bastard we are supposed to believe he was, keeping Catesby around AND on his Council were really really stupid moves!!  It's almost as if someone smacked Richard on the head with a Stupid Stick or double-dog dared him to do it, so he had to, like that poor kid in "A Christmas Story." 

Consider also what Catesby (thanks for pointing this out, Planta Genista!) wrote in his will to the Stanleys: "to pray for my soul as ye have not for my body, as I trusted in you." This on top of telling his wife to tell the kids just how wonderful Henry Tudor is.  Um, what?

As always, I could be missing something here, but the bottom line for me in all of this is regardless of the circumstances, putting so much trust & confidence in Catesby was a mistake, & possibly a fatal one for Richard.

Throw The Rock, Hide Your Hand

This blog is composed of some random thoughts I've been kicking around in my head for a while, as well as in rational discussion groups on Facebook.  One of the things that drive me nuts the most is the hysteria exhibited by the different factions.  If you dare to ask why Richard did something, some Ricardians  will claim you "hate" Richard, are a Tudorite, don't know what you're talking about, are ignorant, and so on.  Richard is a saint. Can do no wrong. He was the innocent victim of the Woodvilles/Tudors/Margaret Beaufort/Insert Your Favorite Plantagenet Boogie Man Here.

As bad as this is, the Woodville faction can be worse.  According to them, More & Shakespeare wrote the Gospel Truth & anyone who asks why Richard did a 180 once his brother was 6' under is labeled a "Bride of Gloucester," doesn't know what they're talking about, is ignorant, & that it is *obvious* to anyone with a brain that the Woodvilles/Tudors/Beauforts were all innocent victims doing nothing but sitting around playing Sudoku while patiently waiting their turn on evil Richard's chopping block.

So why don't we just set all of that garbage aside, take everyone at their word, & see what picture starts to appear? 

Let's accept the fact that Richard was incredibly loyal to his brother, Edward IV.  He had to be. Edward had Richard doing all his heavy lifting in the midlands, among the northern lords, & missions in Scotland.  He was also Lord Admiral.  If there was the slightest suspicion that Richard would ever turn on Edward IV, WHY did he give him so much authority? After Edward, Richard as Duke of Gloucester was the most powerful man in the kingdom.  Even Richard's detractors speak of his loyalty to his brother. He was obviously doing something right as Duke of Gloucester. 

Let's also accept the fact that he was on good terms with the Woodvilles.  They may not have been BFFs, but they also weren't at each other's throats.  Up on deck is Rivers. They had a history, these two, of fighting together for Edward & going into exile with him. There is no hint that there was any disagreements between the two. They may not have known each other well as the years went by, but that doesn't explain what happened at Stony Stratford.  Richard might not have been happy about George's execution, but let's face it: George had it coming.  It was George who had all those problems with the Woodvilles.  Richard, seemingly, did not.  He even enlisted Elizabeth's help in arranging a good marriage for a woman named Katherine, suspected of being one of his mistresses & the mother of one or two of his illegitimate children. He also wrote Elizabeth before he left for London, promising her safety & his loyalty to Edward V. Yeah, that's what happens when you hate your in-laws. You work with them, ask them to do favors for you, & promise in writing to be loyal to their kids. 

Rivers requests an escort for the new king, Edward V, & agrees to limit it to 2000 men.  Richard moves south with 300.  Neither one seems to be hell bent for leather to get to London. So far, so good.  No one is acting out of character.  It is expected that Richard, as Lord Protector, would be escorting Edward V into London. It is expected that Edward V will be headed to London with sufficient protection.  Then something happens.

Rivers fails to meet up with Richard at the expected rendezvous & doubles-back to meet him.  They have a grand old time that evening & the next day, Rivers & others are put under arrest & sent off to Pontefract.  They later lose their heads. Everything goes to hell in a handbag after that.

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED? People who before were on good relations all of a sudden lopping each other's heads off, throwing others in prison, running for sanctuary, or stealing the Treasury & sailing off with the Navy.

If ever you've noticed office politics in action, there is always at least one person you can count on to be a pot-stirrer. (I'm being polite.)  There is a Mexican dicho which loosely translated says "They throw the rock, then hide their hands."  To me, this is what happened to Richard & the Woodvilles after Edward IV died.  At least one, possibly two or three, outside 3rd parties decided they would put a wedge between the Lord Protector & the King & his immediate family.  Why? Because, presuming Richard would be as loyal to Edward V as he was to Edward IV, there would be no way in hell anyone would be able to topple Edward V. 

Who were these 3rd parties?  In my speculation, they could be Hastings, Catesby (who was Hastings' lawyer), & the Duke of Buckingham.  On the sidelines, working the Woodvilles over was Margaret Beaufort, who saw an opportunity & took it.  And who knows who else was there, looking to improve their own situation at the expense of someone else?  Just look at who had the most to gain by a falling-out between the Duke of Gloucester & the Woodvilles, & you'll have your answer.

There's more to this, but I'll leave this here for now. I'm sure I've got something wrong, but that's okay. I can just go back & re-evaluate the events of 1483.  I do think, however, that it will all boil down to some person or persons seeking to create or capitalize on discord for their own purposes.

Rous & More influenced by Mel Brooks? Perhaps.

(Think about "Young Frankenstein" for a few moments, then keep it percolating in the back of your brain while I take some time to get to the point. It does make sense. I promise.)

One of the things that I've found most interesting in researching my family tree is just how often oral history, which we are told by scholars cannot ever be proven & must, therefore, be considered false, turns out to have some truth to it, no matter how teeny-tiny that kernel of truth is. A couple of examples from my own family:

(1) We had long been bored to tears, um, I mean, told that our great great grandfather "rode for the Pony Express."  This particular family myth drove my mother insane as she tried in vain to track it down. Finally, she saw a reference somewhere that put her on the right path. Did you know that the Pony Express had a competitor? Called "Wells Fargo?" And guess who's great great grandfather drove a stage coach for Wells Fargo? Yeah. Him. How something so recent got confused is beyond me, unless it's easier to just say "Pony Express" so you don't have to bore the young ones to tears continually explain that there was another company doing the same thing.

(2) My father got in trouble in school for refusing to say that Paul Revere warned the Minute Men that the British were coming. He would instead say "William Dawes," which he learned from the family oral history that had been pounded into his head (while he was bored to tears).  Everyone thought he was crazy because he didn't know it was Paul Revere; he thought THEY were crazy because they didn't know it was William Dawes. (turns out, they were all correct, but this was in the ancient days before Google so no one had a smart phone to whip out & prove the other wrong.) Besides, as luck would have it, it turns out that one of my family's ancestors knew what time & where to meet up with his homies so they could blow holes in some Redcoats at Lexington & Concord because his farm was on guess who's route? Yup. William Dawes. Too bad Dawes didn't have a cousin who became a poet so his name could be remembered in a famous, but wildly historically inaccurate, poem schoolkids are still forced to memorize & are taught is proven fact. Would have made my dad's life much easier.  Not bitter, just sayin'....

These family stories are only half as old as the multitude told about Richard III, and already they were just as twisted & layered almost to the point that the truth could not be found. Imagine then, the amount of layers & twists & turns one must go through to uncover the underlying truth if there is one to stories about Richard III that have been kicking around for half a millenia.

One of the myths perpetuated about Richard is that he spent 2 years in his mother's womb. Well, obviously THAT didn't happen, but what DID happen? Turns out that Richard had an older brother, Thomas, who was born in either 1450 or 1451, & who died in infancy. Richard comes along around October 1452.  It isn't hard to see how people would think that Cecily was pregnant for 2 years' straight & since she only had 1 child to show for all that morning sickness, just shrug their shoulders & think she was pregnant with Richard for all that time. And the part about being born feet first---could he or Thomas have been breech babies? It happens. So it turns out after all, that there is a little bit of truth behind this particular myth.

As I was researching this little curiosity, I came across references to Richard's uneven shoulders. According to John Rous, who supposedly knew Richard, his right shoulder was higher than his left. BUT, Sir Thomas More (who's a saint & would never, ever lie even though he was 5 when Richard died & probably never met him) says Richard's left shoulder was higher.

"What hump?"

Glass Houses

I find it very ironic (not to mention hypocritical) that the very people demanding financial transparency from the good folks of Leicester & engaging in outright bullying & harassment online & off have not yet coughed up their own financials for everyone to peruse & nit-pick.

In my opinion, if you soak the British taxpayers to the tune of 176K GBP so you can tilt at legal windmills, attempting to get something to which you were never entitled, you have absolutely no grounds to question how others raise funds or spend them.

And that is all I have to say about that.

Another Lie (or 3) Bites The Dust

Since I live in the States, I was really disappointed that the latest Channel 4 show "Richard III The New Evidence" was not going to be broadcast outside the UK or available online for streaming. Hello, this is the 21st Century, folks, the world of YouTube & Roku & simulcasting. But thanks to some unknown kind-hearted soul, I was able to view it to see what all the screaming was about.

Unlike many Ricardians who watched the show, I don't think that it made Richard look like a glutton or a drunkard. On the contrary, I came away from the show with two things: a much deeper respect for Richard III, & sadly,  the impression that he was on a downward spiral health-wise.  As demonstrated by Dominic Smee who has the exact same condition as Richard had, his rib cage was twisted & prevented him from getting the deep breaths necessary for stamina in battle. However, the lack of lung capacity could have been fatal in other ways. A bad cold could have easily turned into pneumonia. Even if he had survived Bosworth, remarried, & had a son or sons, I don't think he would have lived long enough for those children to reach adulthood, throwing England back into chaos over succession.  Hate on me all you want, I just don't see him living that long.

Others have attacked the show for not bringing up the Stanleys & treason & all the political undercurrents of 1485. This view frustrates me to no end. The show was about Richard III & what the scientists have discovered about his health, not a re-telling of the Battle of Bosworth. They put Smee through his paces & even though he hadn't trained in medieval warfare from childhood as Richard had, he put a big, fat "BS" stamp on all those claims that Richard was a coward, was weak, physically incapable of riding a horse, or leading troops in battle. 

The information about the changes in his diet (an uptake in alcohol consumption & more exotic table fare) was interesting, but not as important as Smee's demonstrations.  Anyone with passing knowledge of the Middle Ages knows that people didn't drink water. They drank various forms of beer & wine, all of which was a lot weaker than what we drink today.  And there is no evidence from anyone that Richard was anything but slender, so really, it's a tempest in a teapot. It wouldn't be the first time that evidence was sensationalized in order to get high ratings. It won't be the last.

After watching this show, I came away with a deeper respect for Richard as a human being.   It boggles my mind that despite the limitations caused by the scoliosis, he still took down at least two men larger & in better physical shape than him, before ultimately losing his life.  How anyone can think that a TV program that demonstrates this is a bad thing for Richard III is beyond me. 

In Memoriam

Peace

In reading the legitimate reviews of the King Richard III Visitor Centre, it struck me how many reviews mentioned the same word, or variations of it: "Peace."

"It is peaceful." "peaceful surroundings" "quiet" "respectful" "peaceful"

Peace. Peace. Peace. Peace.

PEACE 

Think on this for a moment. Such a simple word. Such a simple concept. And yet:

From the moment he was born, Richard III never knew peace. True peace, that is. Not just a cessation of war, but peace from strife, in-fighting, scheming. Not one day. Ever. No wonder he ground his teeth down.

Richard lived in a snake pit, surrounded by family & "friends" who continually plotted & schemed to get "The Next Big Thing" for themselves. (I'm looking at you, Kingmaker.) He died in the midst of battle, betrayed by others still plotting & scheming to get their own "Next Big Thing." (why, hello there, Stanleys, Buckingham, & Lady Grey)

For the thirty-two years of his life on Earth, he never knew a moment of true peace, when he didn't have to worry about what someone was planning or plotting to do when he wasn't watching. (GEORGE!)

So it's almost a shock to see reviews of a Visitor Centre devoted to Richard III repeatedly using the one word people would not logically associate with him: "Peace."

Shortly before the judges announced their decision, I was on the fence about where Richard III should be re-interred. It really didn't matter to me because my own choice, Westminster Abbey, was so far out of the running, it never made it to the starting gate.

And then I watched a Youtube video about Leicester, & I was so struck by a feeling of peace, I knew instantly what the right decision should be. And so it was.

Isn't it a good thing, then, that it is Leicester where Richard will finally get the one thing he never had in life? Peace.