Richard Society, Volume No. 4 Winter, 1998

Cover Design by Wheeler

Staff

EDITOR: Carole M. Rike

4702 Dryades St. . New Orleans, LA 70115 (504) 897-9673FAX (504) . e-mail:

REA DING EDITOR: Myrna Smith

Rt. 1 Box 232B ! Hooks, TX 75561(903) 547-6609 ! FAX: (903) 792-7398 or (903) 628-2658

ARTIST: Susan Dexter

1510 Delaware Avenue ! New Castle, PA 16105-2674

In This Issue

The Cat, The Rat and Lovell the Dog Richardson

A Celebrity Defense, Laura 11Charlie Rose’s Interview with

F i e l d s , A n n e 1 4Queen’s College, Cambridge

Sharon 1.51999 AGM 16P r o f i l e : D i a n e 1 6Ricardian Post. 21States of Fervor Part 2

Peggy AllenRicardian Reading, Myrna Smith 23Chapter Contacts. 28Membership Application 28

A D D I T I O N S T O R E S E A R C H L I B R A R Y

Christine Carpenter, The Wars Roses: Politicsand the Constitution in England, c. 1437-1509(1997)

Rosemary Horrox, ed., Attitudes: Perceptions of Society in Late MedievalEngland (1994)

John Watts, Hen y VI and the Politics of Kingship(1996)

1999 Richard III Society, Inc., American Branch. No part may bereproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means mechanical,electrical or photocopying, recording or information storage retrieval without written permission the submitted bymembers remain the property of the author. The Ricardian Register ispublished four times per year. Subscriptions are available at $18.00annually.

The Richard III Society, founded 1924, is a nonprofit, educationalcorporation. Dues, grants and contributions are tax-deductible to theextent allowed by law.

In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of thecharacter and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficientevidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote in everypossible way research into the life and times of Richard III, and tosecure a re-assessment of the material relating to this period, and ofthe role in English history of this monarch.

Dues are $30 annually for U.S. Addresses; $35 for international.Each additional family member is $5. Members of the AmericanSociety are also members of the English Society. Members alsoreceive the English publications. All Society publications and itemsfor sale may be purchased either direct at the U.K. Member’s price, orvia the American Branch when available. Papers may be borrowedfrom the English Librarian, but books are not sent overseas. When aU.S. Member visits the U.K., all meetings, expeditions and otheractivities are open, including the AGM, where U.S. Members arewelcome to cast a vote.

Advertise in The Ricardian Register

Your ad in the Register will reach an audience of demonstrated mailbuyers and prime prospects for books on the late medieval era, as wellas for gift items and other merchandise relating to this period. Theyare also prospects for lodging, tours and other services related to travelin England or on the continent. Classified advertising rates forone-time insertions: Full Page: $100; Half Page: $50; Quarter Page:

Send copy with your remittance payable to Richard III Society, 4702Dryades Street, New Orleans, LA 70115-5532 or e-mail to

Copy Deadlines:Spring March 15Summer June 15Fall September 15Winter December

Society Internet address: (Parent Society)

(American Branch) for information)

Changes of address and dues payments to:Peggy Allen, Membership,

1421 !

Winter, 1998 Register

EXECUTIVE BOARD

CHAIRMAN: Dr. Sharon D. Michalove309 Gregory ! 810 Wright St.. ! Urbana, IL 61801

(217) 333-4145 !

VICE CHAIRMAN: Dawn R. Benedetto39 Elgin Avenue ! Forest Park, IL 60130-1118

(708) 209-1409 ! dabenedetto@lucent.comss

SECRETARY : Dianne G. Batch9842 Haawthorn Glven Drive Grosse MI 48138-2115

!

TREASURER : Bonnie5191 Hanks Exchange Road. Placerville, CA 95667

(530) 622-6470 . bonnieb@innercite.com

M EMBERSHIP C H A I R M A N: Allen1421 Wisteria Metairie, LA 70005 (504) 837-0974

IMMEDIATE PAST C H A I R MAN: Dr. Compton ReevesDept. of History ! Bentley

Ohio University ! Athens, OH 45701-2979

COMMITTEES

C H AP TER C O O R D I N A T O R : Judie 10071 Sturgeon Lane Cincinnati, 48251

(513) 742-1472

O N- LINE M EMBER SERVICES : Cheryl6033 Sam Smith Road Birchwood, TN 37308 (423) 961-2515

Fax: (423) 961-2519

LIBRARIAN : Audio/Visual: Yvonne Saddler719 Apple Brook Lane Poulsbo, WA 98370

LIBRARIA N: Fiction: Jeanne 2215 Westmoreland ! Falls Church, VA 22043 ! (703) 532-3430

LIBRARIAN: Research &Non-Fiction: Helen Maurer24001 Salero Lane Mission CA 92691 ! (714) 768-0417

R ESEARCH O F F I C E R: Dr. Sharon D. 309 Gregory 810 Wright St.. Urbana, IL 61801

(217) 333-4145

P UBLIC R ELATIONS O F F I C E R: Marianna K. Preston143 Beach Plum #A Lewes, DE 19958-1737

SALES O FFICER: Jennifer Reed44 Bartemus Trail Nashua, NH 03063

SCHALLEK Nancy 1915 Euclid Avenue ! Charlotte, NC 28203-4707

(704) 334-7793

SCHOOLS COORDINATOR: Anne Vineyard4014 Broken Bow Lane Garland, TX 75044

W EBMASTER : Laura V. Blanchard2041 Christian St. ! Philadelphia, PA 19146

(215) 985-1445 ! FAX (215) 985-1446

Welcome back to Geoff Richardson, who also wrotelast issue’s feature on the Battle of In thisissue, he has tackled the three associates of RichardIII with whom his name is so often linked.

Geoffrey kindly responded to my call for an article onFriends of Richard. It was not until I read his originaldraft that I realized how naive my request was.Perhaps these were friends, but the more propername would be associates.I’m still looking for someone to help out with anarticle on the relationship between Richard III andthe City of York, as well as perhaps a focus on theStanleys, the Nevilles or John Morton (or whateverstrikes your fancy). If you would be willing to writesomething for publication, please let me hear fromyou. (footnotes not required!)

Laura Blanchard interviewed Fields, theauthor of Royal Blood in January and this issue wasdelayed in order to include that interview. Welcomeback to Laura, who stays busy with the andhas not written for us lately; as always, she does asuperb job.

Peggy Allen is still looking at Ricardian Fervor andMyrna Smith is still begging for book reviews.

Please let us hear from you with your comments onour publication, any suggestions or personal newsyou wish to share.

Our sympathies to Dawn Benedetto, who lost herhusband and nephew in a drowning accident in lateDecember.

T H A N K S

I was both touched and surprised by the scrollnaming me honorary Dean of Middleham Col-lege, the beautiful crystal boar and the card whichyou presented to me at the AGM in Cincinnati. Iknow that many of you besides the instigatorswere in on the secret and I must say none of yougave the slightest indication of what you hadplanned.

The boar has a place of honor in my study and Iwill have the scroll framed and hung next to theportrait of Richard III. Thank you all from thebottom of my heart. This has demonstrated onceagain that Ricardians are the greatest people.

Roxane C.

Ricardian Register Winter, 1998

0 n the 29th November 1484, a Commission ofOyer and Terminer including in its distin-guished membership John Howard, Duke of Suf-folk, kinsman to the King, John Howard, Duke ofNorfolk with his son Thomas, Earl of Surrey, Wil-liam Berkeley, Earl of Nottingham, and Francis,Viscount Lovell, the King’s best friend convenedat the Guildhall in London.

The Commission had been summoned to hear thecase against two men who stood accused of “certaintreasons” and other offences. Amongst the crimes thepair were accused of, John Turbeville was charged withpublishing abroad a certain doggerel verse written bythe other, William Colingbourne, a Wiltshire man ofsome note who, in 1478, had served in his county as aCommissioner investigating land-holdings of Georgeof Clarence, following the Duke’s execution for trea-son earlier in the same year. Colingbourne’s “poetic fence” dated from the early Summer of 1483, when,twelve days after King Richard’s Coronation, the fol-lowing rhyme had been nailed to the door of St Paul’s:

“The Cat, the Rat, and our Dog,Rule under a Hog”

Turbeville was “reprieved” to prison possiblyfor turning King’s evidence but the Commis-sioners duly found Colingbourne guilty of treasonand, at the beginning of December, he suffered thecruellest death reserved for Capital offenders, beingpublicly hung, drawn and quartered on Tower Hill“where for him was made a new pair of gallows”.

The Hog referred to in Colingbcurne’s fatalrhyme was Richard himself whose personal badgewas a white boar. The other three were importantfriends of the King, to wit: William Catesby, Speakerfor the Commons and a member of the Great Coun-cil, Sir Richard another member of theKing’s Council, and Francis, Viscount Lovell, whoseformal education in the first steps towards knight-hood had been taken at Middleham Castle, whencehe had subsequently formed a life-long attachment tothe fortunes of the Duke of Gloucester, later RichardIII.

Strangely, the four men named in Colingbourne’sdoggerel verse, which cost him his life, would all dieby similar violence within the next rive years, two inthe fury of battle, one of starvation after fleeing astricken field, and the fourth earning the dubious dis-tinction of being the only “man of quality” to be

Richardson

publicly beheaded as retribution for supporting thelosing side at Bosworth Field.

The last cruelty was reserved by fate for WilliamCatesby, who had followed his King, Richard III, toAmbion Hill and was captured by Henry Tudor’smen after the final defeat of the Yorkists. His execu-tion was carried out, despite a groveling submissionto the new monarch, in Leicester market square onAugust 1485.

The Cat

The Catesby family had ancient and honourableroots in Northamptonshire, but only began to acquirereal wealth and importance on a substantial scaleduring the latter part of the fifteenth century. SirWilliam Catesby father to “The Cat” was a re-ligious man, rebuilding the parish church at the fam-ily seat of St. Leger and, among other works,endowing a religious community in the nearby lord-ship of Catesby. Perhaps more important to the fu-ture of his line was Sir William’s decision after thefinal destruction of Lancaster at Tewkesbury in 1471,to throw off his old allegiance to the Rose andbecome a retainer of Lord William Hastings, whoserush to join the then untried Earl of March immedi-ately before Mortimer’s Cross had led him to power,wealth and influence, second only to that wielded byKing Edward IV himself.

William Catesby had marr ied ea r ly , beforeTewkesbury was fought, to Margaret, the daughter ofLord Zouche of Harringworth. This was an excellentmatch for an aspiring young man and appears to havebeen a very successful marriage, judging by his refer-ence in his will to “my dear and well-beloved wife, towhom I have ever been true And, the matrimo-nial benefits increased further when, following thedeath of Lord Zouche, Catesby’s mother-in-lawmarried John, Lord of a wealthy andinfluential landowner in north Yorkshire, whose con-tacts and standing further improved the prospects ofthis ambitious young man.

Following his father, the younger William had en-tered the service of Lord Hastings and, like his uncleJohn before him, sought a place in the legal profes-sion. In this pursuit he was most successful and by1475 was sufficiently learned to be lecturing to stu-dents at the Inns of Court on the legal implications ofMagna As well as Hastings, he had retainersfrom Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury,Lady Latimer, co-heir to the Warwick Earldom, and

Winter, 1998 Ricardian Register

even more significantly for his future standing in theRealm, he became known to, and carried out much

work f o r , H e n r y S t a f f o r d , D u k e o fBuckingham.

Perhaps the mos t s ign i f i can t s t a tement onCatesby’s capabilities comes from Thomas More,who in his of King Richard III, says

besides his excellent knowledge of [English]Law, he was a man of b e a r i n g ,handsomely featured and of excellent appearance,not only suitable for carrying out assignments butcapable also of handling matters of graveconsequence. But goes on, wouldnot wish that a man of so wit should be of so

faith

Equally interesting is the Sainted Thomas’swriting on Catesby’s relationship with Hastings. Hesays that Catesby was “of [Hastings’] nere secretcounsel and in his most weighty matters put noman in so special trust [since he well knew] there wasno man so beholden to him as this Catesby . “And,most interesting of all, on events leading up toHastings execution: it was the disimulation ofthis one man that stirred up the whole plague of evilswhich followed. If Hastings had not trusted him socompletely, then [Lord Thomas] Stanley and othernobles of their faction would have withdrawn at thefirst suspicion of deceit and with their departure theywould have overthrown the secret and wicked plansof the protector

In this section at least, one clearly discerns theguiding hand of the Master of Deceit himself, More’spatron, John Morton, adding as always a greatlie to the basic truth, and again attributing his own“secret and wicked plans” to the long-dead, betrayedRichard of Gloucester. And, one may go on to won-der whether the real reason for Catesby’s hasty exe-cution after Bosworth was not some involvement inthe conspiracy of the wicked Stanley, Morton andM a r g a r e t to bring about the eventualdownfall of Richard III, and the consequent need toclose his mouth permanently. Food, perhaps, forfurther reflection on this fascinating subject one day.

However, to return to our theme, the fortunes ofthe Catesbys, which had flourished under the pa-tronage of Hastings, might have been expected tofade after the Lord Chamberlain’s hurried executionon June 1483, but, to the contrary, they blos-somed as never before. The younger William Catesbyproved adept at trimming his sails to the changingwinds of power in England and, following the deathof his family’s former benefactor, he immediately ap-peared as a close confidant of the Protector soonto become King of England. There were reports that

Catesby had, in fact, joined with Buckingham inscheming the down-fall of his late master, and thiswould fit with his continuing progress along theCorridors of Power. But, as was to appear regularlyin his subsequent career, no proof was ever broughtforward of his involvement in such appallingtreachery.

In the next two years, following the accession ofRichard III to the throne, his devoted servant Wil-liam Catesby amassed an astonishingly large portfo-lio of property. Building on the family estateestablished by his father centered on StLegers, he acquired title to more than a score ofManors and Lordships stretching across three coun-ties Northants, Leicestershire and Warwickshire

including four Manors in Northants which weredeeded to him by Francis Lovell, less than threemonths after they had been restored to the Viscountfrom the late Sir Richard Grey’s properties, by theKing himself. Evidence perhaps of the persuasivepowers of The Cat, who, in addition to his broadacres was confirmed as Chancellor of the Earldom ofMarch, made Chancellor of the Exchequer for lifeand granted further stewardships previously held byother retainers of the dead Hastings.

One illustration of the methods used by Catesbyin acquiring more and more real property is the caseof John Foster, another of Hastings’ retainers whoheld the fat stewardship of St. jointly with hisLord. Foster was seized within hours of Hastings’ ex-ecution and thrown in the Tower. After two dayswithout food or water in a stinking dungeon, Fosterfelt impelled to give up his stewardship, which wasimmediately granted by a still-grateful Protector toCatesby.

Buckingham’s revolt against the new King gavefresh scope to Catesby’s opportunities to serve hisMonarch and his own ambitions. He collectedmany new estates confiscated from the late Duke andhis adherents and soon became the principal channelto the King’s ear. By Christmas 1483, Lord Stanleywas paying him an annuity for his “goodwill;” LordDudley made him steward of his estate at Rugby at ayearly fee of 10 marks and Thomas Bourchier madehim Bailiff of Pagham at a fee of two marks. In Janu-ary 1484, at the only Parliament of Richard’s reign,Catesby was appointed Speaker for the Commons,perhaps the ultimate demonstration of his Sover-eign’s trust. William Catesby had definitely arrived.

The Cat used the immense political power he hadacquired, allied with his natural powers of persua-sion, to carve out his own mini-empire in middleEngland and, by the time Richard summoned hisforces to meet at Leicester in August 1485, WilliamCatesby had achieved his chief ambition, which wasto supplant his former patron, Hastings, as the chief

Ricardian Register Winter, 1998

magnate in the Midlands.To accomplish so much intwo brief years, he often hadto employ harsh methods,and there were many mours of his sharp practicein legal dealings, but withhis monopoly of access toRichard, there was no possi-bi l i ty of “complaint toHigher Authority” reachingthe King. The Cat had it allsewn up, but he was widelydisliked hated is probablynot too strong a word inhis own counties, and muchof this opprobrium must

have brushed off on to hismaster. In one more in-stance, Richard trusted notwisely, but too well.

not. for he is called a full gracious prince andwhich concludes for God I take to my judge, Ihave ever loved him And the opening sentencein the second [and final] paragraph which reads “MyLords Stanley, Strange [Stanley’s son] and all thatblood, help and pray for my soul for ye have not formy body as trusted in you...” [Author’s italics] Whydid he trust in the Stanleys ? How could he expectTudor to know that Catesby had “ever loved him?”And what possible reason could Catesby have had toexpect decent treatment for his relicts from a man asmean and vengeful as Henry Tudor? Clearly hethought he had reasonable cause for such hopes, butall were disappointed since the Stanleys did not in-tervene in his cause and Henry confiscated virtually

Memorial Brass to Sir all the expanded estate, kept most of it and used the

William rest to “pay off’ supporters ever the model of aneconomical monarch!

photo Geoffrey Wheeler

Catesby was present at Bosworth Field, though hedid not play any active role in the fighting, and wastaken prisoner by Tudor’s men. The decision to exe-cute him was inevitable, given his close associationwith the dead King Richard, the many enemies hehad made in the previous two years and, in the viewof one Chronicler at least, the strong probability that“he knew too much.” His Last Will and Testament,signed before his execution on August 25th 1485,throws light on a number of aspects of his life and ca-reer. He left instructions to his “dear andWell-beloved” wife, Margaret, as his sole executor “torestore all lands that I have wrongfully purchased”and he goes on to list a number of specific cases presumably “purchases” made under particularlyheavy duress. He orders that his Father’s debts andbequests should be paid, specifically noting moneysleft to the Nunnery at Catesby and leaves one hun-dred pounds to the Duchess of Buckingham to helpher see “her Lord’s debts paid and his will executed”,all duties which for obvious reasons Catesbyhad been “putting off”. Clearly, a man badly taintedwith avarice.

In his private life, he may have been a nicer person.He asks Margaret’s forgiveness for any hemay have unwittingly given her and “prays” that theBishops of Winchester, Worcester and London willhelp her in executing his Will. Less generously, per-haps, he asks her to remain single, though he prom-ises to pray for her soul as he hopes she will for his “and Jesus have mercy upon my soul, Amen.”

The chief interest for this historian in Catesby’sbrief, last document lies first, in an apparently point-less plea to Henry Tudor to “be a good and graciousLord” to his widow and orphans which he “Doubted

There is much fertile ground here for future re-search methinks, but next we must turn to the secondman defamed in Colingham’s verse, who was verydifferent to the crafty, clerical Catesby.

The RatSir Richard Ratcliffe was a typical North of Eng-

land fighting-man from the same mould as RobertOgle, the unsung hero of First St and JohnConyers, who settled the account of Sir WilliamHerbert briefly Earl of Pembroke at He was the second son of Sir Thomas Ratcliffe ofDerwentwater and like all his family, was countedamong the supporters of the Middleham Nevilles, aloyalty which transferred naturally to Richard ofGloucester, son-in-law of the last great Neville.

Ratcliffe became the second husband of Agnes,widow of Sir Christopher Boynton, and daughter toLord of and thereby, eventually andafter a roundabout fashion, he would count WilliamCatesby as his Step-Brother-in-Law. After his mar-riage, Ratcliffe set up house at Sedbury in NorthYorkshire and came to the notice of Richard of Glou-cester soon after the Duke’s move north toMiddleham, through his involvement in expeditionsagainst raiding Scottish bands. Richard made him aMagistrate of the North Riding in 1471 and within

years, he was Constable and Master Forester ofBarnard Castle. In 1477 he was appointed to theDuke of Gloucester’s Council and made one of Rich-ard’s feoffees of Middleham.

Further marks of the Duke’s favour continued toimprove the standing and, no doubt, the finances ofthe faithful work-horse Ratcliffe, who was madeC o m m i s s i o n e r o f A r r a y i n D u r h a m a n dNorthumberland in 1480. In the following year, aftermaking courageous efforts in the punitory campaignsagainst the raiding mounted by Gloucester,

Winter, 1998 Ricardian Register

Ratcliffe became Sir Richard and he was further ad-vanced in 1482 when the tails were cut from his non and he became a Knight-Banneret.

Richard of Gloucester’s trust in Ratcliffe wasmade apparent again by his appointment as a mem-ber of the Council of the North Riding in May of1483. In the same month, Ratcliffe had ridden southwith the Duke to the fateful meeting withBuckingham and Rivers at Northampton and thenon to the triumphal entry into London on May as part of the escort for the new boy-king, followingthe arrest of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan at StonyStratford.

Richard kept Ratcliffe by him during his firstmonth as Protector of the Kingdom feeling hecould well have need of strong loyal hands about himin the “foreign” country of England’s Capital andthis perception was confirmed by developing events.Early in June, Richard’s chief ally, Henry Stafford,Duke of Buckingham came to the Protector with adetailed report of a plot by the Woodville factionwith which Gloucester’s old comrade-in-arms, Wil-liam, Lord Hastings had allied himself, and whichaimed at the seizure of Edward V prior to his Coro-nation and his return to the care and supervision ofhis Woodville family. Since Gloucester would be sureto resist any such change, he too would be taken andimprisoned or, more likely, killed by Hastings’ men.The neutralising of Richard would take place at theearliest possible opportunity, probably after or dur-ing a meeting of the Great Council which, under theProtector’s Chairmanship, currently ruled the country.

With Buckingham, Richard of Gloucester rapidlyformulated plans for a counter-coup and moved tosummon armed reinforcements from his homeground in Yorkshire and the North. On June 11ththerefore, Sir Richard Ratcliffe left London andspurred hard up the Great North Road bearing secretletters under Gloucester’s personal seal. He reachedLeconfield on the 13th of the month and deliveredone of his letters to Henry Percy, Earl ofNorthumberland, leaving immediately for the Cityof York and thence to Lord Neville and other adher-ents of the Protector’s cause. Coincidentally, on thesame morning, Richard’s first counter-blow had beenstruck when, at the special Council meeting he hadused as bait for the plotters, he turned the tables onthe would-be assassins and ordered the arrest andsummary execution of Lord William Hastings, lat-terly Great Chamberlain of England.

His mission completed, Ratcliffe hastened backagain to Richard’s side and learned that the plannedrevolt, once made leaderless, had fizzled out.

However, the Protector had one further missionfor him: he was to go to Pomfret Castle where theWarden of the Middle and Eastern Marches had

been instructed to assemble Anthony Woodville,Earl Rivers, his nephew Lord Richard Grey and SirThomas Vaughan, who had all been judged guilty ofTreason, for immediate execution. Ratcliffe wouldcarry the warrant for this terminal act and would stayto ensure that the executions were properly carriedout. This he did, and the three died together on June25th 1483, thus keeping Ratcliffe away from the his-toric occasion when the three estates of England pro-cessed together to Baynard’s Castle, Richard’smother’s home in London where he was lodged, andthere prayed that the Duke of Gloucester would takeon the dire responsibility of Kingship.

Unwillingly, Richard of Gloucester acceded to thepeoples’ demand and, a month later, RichardRatcliffe received the due reward of his unflaggingefforts in his master’s support when, with JohnConyers, he was made a Knight of the Garter in theCoronation Honours posted in July, 1483. Duringthe next three months, Ratcliffe was busy as alwaysabout his King’s business, travelling part-way withhim on his “meet the people” tour of England andchecking developments in the northern counties andparticularly in the Border area. He rejoined the Kingas Richard left York at the end of September and be-gan a slow progress back to London. However, newsof an armed uprising in Kent reached him at Lincolnin mid-October and caused him to hasten his prog-ress southwards, only to halt again when news camethat the Duke of Buckingham was “up” with, report-edly, a large force of and EnglishMarchers at his back and proclaiming his support forHenry Tudor as true King of England.

Richard acted decisively, sending to John Howard,Duke of Norfolk, to move against the Kentish rebelsand summoning all his northern support to meetwith him at Leicester not later than October 22nd tomarch against the “false traitor” and “most untruecreature living,” H e n r y S t a f f o r d , D u k e o fBuckingham. When his rapidly-assembled armyswung through Leicester’s gates on October 24thheading south-westwards to Coventry and fromthere, onwards to meet Buckingham, Sir RichardRatcliffe rode at his side, the veteran’s well-worn mour gleaming dully in the watery sunlight.

From his stronghold in Brecknock, HenryStafford had been leading his forces eastward for theprevious six days, hoping to gather strength to useagainst the “usurping” Richard as he went. Un-happily for him, the climate proved entirely hostileand it had rained solidly and torrentially throughouttheir march. The men were wet, cold and hungry anddesertions had already started when the news camethat King Richard was approaching with a very largeand well-equipped force. That was enough forBuckingham’s rebel army, which dissolved in the rain

Register Winter, 1998

and the mud and disappeared back towards its[mainly] Welsh homeland.

The King received the news of the collapse ofBuckingham’s threat as he left Coventry, so he swunghis army southwards instead of to the west, and as hemoved forward through improving weather, themake-shift alliance of the remaining supporters ofLancaster and Woodville crumbled before his ap-proach. Reaching Salisbury on October Rich-ard rested his troops for a day and the followingmorning, amid great excitement and surrounded byheavily-armed guards led by the Sheriff of shire, Buckingham dirty, dressed in rags, despairing was brought in for judgement. Sir Ralph Assheton,

Buckingham’s Deputy as Constable was designatedby the King to hold court and, with no defence to of-fer, the Duke was condemned as a traitor and exe-cuted in Salisbury market square on November 1483.

Many of Richard’s loyal supporters benefitedgreatly from the attainders which followed thestamping out of the last embers of rebellion, but nonemore than Sir Richard Ratcliffe. He was granted es-tates in Devon, Dorset and Somerset to a value ofover 1,000 marks and it was clear that Richard in-tended him to be his chief upholder in the Southwestand his main defence against any resurgence of theLancastrian Earls of Devon. Immediately however,Ratcliffe was most sorely needed in the North againand such was the number of missions and othercharges he was given, to and against the it ishard to believe that he was able to spend much timein his new estates. As further reward for his continu-ing services, Richard made him Sheriff of Wakefieldand Sheriff of Westmorland for life in August 1484and he was noted by the chroniclers as one who “car-ried great sway in County Durham” in the dyingmonths of King Richard’s reign.

In the late Summer of 1485, the news came of Tu-dor’s landing in Wales and Ratcliffe again rode southto join with his master and King. The rendezvous wasat Leicester and there his most loyal captain joinedRichard, last of the Plantagenets, and together thetwo rode out of Leicester’s gates on Sunday, August

leading a smaller army than they would havehoped for and with Henry Percy hanging back at therear, a doubtful ally at best. When Richard made hislast cast of the die the following day and chargeddown Ambion’s slope in a last, vain effort to silenceHenry Tudor’s spurious claims once and for all,Ratcliffe was at his side, still guarding his flank andrear, and he died with the King, for whom and forwhose cause he had lived, in the following melee.

For his loyalty and bravery he was posthumouslyattainted a traitor to “England’s lawful King” in thefirst Parliament of the new reign, and his vast estate

went to swell the rapidly burgeoning wealth of thehitherto penniless scion of the lost cause of Lancas-ter, with some parts reserved for restoration to theCourtenays and other former owners who had suf-fered for their support of the claims of the House ofTudor.

Now, the Cat, the Rat and the Hog were gone.Only the Dog remained and he had fled, stripped oflands and wealth and titles, to sanctuary in the AbbeyChurch of St. John in Colchester. Here he waited andrested and planned for another accounting with theWelsh usurper which would come out differently tothat at Bosworth Field.

The DogFrancis Love11 is the shadow-man of Richard’s

umvirs, even his birthdate is not known with any cer-tainty, t h o u g h i t w a s undoubtedly betweenNovember 1455 and February 14.56. He was the onlyson of Sir John Lovell and Joan Beaumont, both fam-ilies being staunch supporters of the Lancastriancause. His father joined Lords Scales and ford in trying to hold the Tower for Henry VI follow-ing the return of the Earls [Salisbury, Warwick andMarch] from Calais in June 1460 and, after Edward’svictory at the following year, all Sir John’slands were confiscated by the new King.

However, he was not attainted and by the end of1463 had found his way back to favour with hisYorkist rulers and achieved the recovery of his estates.He was then unwise enough to join Somerset’s rebel-lion in the early Summer of 1464 and his death is re-corded on January 9th 1465. Later that year, hismother Joan was married again ironically, in lightof later events in the life of her son to Sir WilliamStanley, but, on August 1466, she too died.

Six months earlier, at the age of 10, Francis hadbeen married to Anne Fitzhugh, third daughter ofLord Fitzhugh of Ravensworth in North Yorkshireand Alice Neville, sister to the Earl of Warwick. Thislinkage with the Neville family was further reinforcedin November 1467, when the wardship of FrancisLovell -with the revenues from his broad estates was granted to Richard Neville and Francis was sentto Middleham Castle, the Earl’s northern strong-hold, to begin his training as a knight. This would bethe first tie between the lives of Lovell and Richardof Gloucester, since the youngest Plantagenet hadspent a similar apprenticeship at Middleham, whichhe completed some months before the arrival of theyoung Lovell.

The early years of Francis Lovell’s training forknighthood were, therefore, spent in the nerve-centreof Warwick’s plotting to maintain his supremacy inthe ruling of England, contrary to the ideas of hisformer pupil and cousin, Edward IV. This is

Winter, 1998 Ricardian Register

confirmed by Lovell’s, and his wife’s, inclusion in ageneral pardon to the Fitzhugh’s for acts done in sup-port of the rebellion by Warwick and Clarence againstthe King’s majesty in July 1470. Briefly thereafter, thepardon became irrelevant when Warwick returnedand re-installed Henry VI as England’s King but, af-ter Edward’s crushing victories at andTewkesbury, the future of Francis, Lord wasamongst the many loose ends tied up by Edward IV,and his wardship and the income from his estates-was passed to John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk andhusband to Edward’s sister Elizabeth. It was while hewas a ward of Suffolk that Lovell met the Duke’s son,John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, eventually desig-nated as heir to the throne by Richard III, and at Lin-coln’s side years later, Lovell would see the finaldemise of the house of Plantagenet of York on a goryfield beside the old Roman road, the Fosse way, in theSummer of 1487.

Ten years prior to the downfall of the White Rose,Francis having attained his majority, peti-tioned King Edward for the return of his estates andthis was granted on November 7th of 1477. However,obtaining possession of what was rightfully his wasnot a simple matter and for some considerable timeFrancis Lovell found himself involved in suits at Lawto recover his lands. Some of the litigation was againstpowerful magnates, Lord William Hastings was one,and another was Sir Richard Grey, respectively theKing’s best friend and oldest comrade-in-arms, andEdward’s step-son. Lovell clearly needed a “friend atcourt” and the likeliest provider of such supportwould appear to be the King’s brother, Richard Dukeof Gloucester. Lovell had large land-holdings inNorth Yorkshire, some of them for example

running immediately next to Middleham’s estates,so there was much in common between the royalDuke and his fellow-graduate from the Castle’s train-ing school and on June 20th 1480, Francis Lovell wasappointed a Commissioner of Array for the NorthRiding of Yorkshire.

His first duties involved the recruitment of men tomarch with Gloucester on a major, punitive campaigninto Scotland. This invading force was led in addi-tion to Duke Richard by the other chiefland-owners in the Borders, Henry Percy, Earl ofNorthumberland and Lord Thomas Stanley. found opportunities to distinguish himself in the en-suing fighting and he was knighted by Richard atHutton-by-Berwick on August 22nd 1481. Later, asthe advance into Scotland continued, he was himselfgranted the privilege of knighting two of his owncommanders following action near Dumfries, one ofthe pair being that vastly experienced captain, Rich-ard Constable of Barnard Castle. After thecampaign, Richard continued to find employment for

Love11 in the north and hewas appointed a commis-sioner of oyer and terminerfor Yorkshire in March,1482.

In November of thatyear, he received his firstsummons to Parliament,where the success of Glou-cester’s Scottish campaignwas greatly lauded and, onJanuary 4th following, was Arms of Francis,signally honoured by the

upon Garter Plate

count Lovell, clearly a fur-ther celebration of Gloucester’s victories through theennoblement of one who had earned a place amongthe Duke’s most-trusted captains. Three months later,on April 1483, Edward IV, greatest warrior-kingof the English, died peacefully in his bed and Richardof Gloucester would have sore need of men he couldtrust.

In the fraught months following the King’s death,leading, via the exclusion of Edward’s children fromthe succession on account of their illegitimacy, to theCoronation of Gloucester as Richard III, Lovell wasbusy on his master’s behalfworking as a commissionerof the peace in Northamptonshire, the East Riding ofYorkshire, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Essex and Oxfordand, late in June, was appointed a chamberlain of theRoyal Household, confirmed as Chief Butler of theKingdom and created Constable of Wallingford inOxfordshire. Love11 and his wife played prominentroles in the Coronation ceremonial, with Francis car-rying the third Sword of State and his wife joining the

procession on the eve of the ceremony. Theyjoined the royal couple on their following tour of theKingdom and entertained them at the newly refur-bished residence at Minster Lovell, en route toGloucester.

When news of Buckingham’s revolt reached theKing, Lovell was immediately sent to his estates toraise men and to command similar support from hisprincipal neighbours, chief among whom, Sir Wil-liam Stonor, failed to comply and had indeed takenhis forces to join Henry Stafford’s rebels. However,Love11 raised a strong force which rendezvoused at

on October 18th and marched on toLeicester, joining Richard there two days later.

He stayed with the King’s army throughout thecampaign and witnessed its effective ending in bury market square on Sunday, November whenthe erstwhile Duke of Buckingham was publiclybeheaded.

Through the remaining short period of Richard’sreign less than two years of life remained to him

Ricardian Register Winter,

after Buckingham’s death Francis Love11 contin-ued his chosen role as the King’s close friend andtrusted confidant and when news came of the adventof the long-awaited Tudor invasion, Love11 was sentby Richard to raise men and to guard the south coastwhich was regarded as the likliest place for Tudor’slanding. The King placed his most trusted servant inthe place where his undoubted loyalty was mostneeded. In the event, Henry Tudor landed in SouthWales on August 7th and quickly began making hisway toward the centre of England for the do or dieconfrontation with the last of the Plantagenet line.

Love11 turned his back on the south coast andheaded north towards Leicester again for a reunionwith his King, prior to the final confrontation withthe descendant of the bastard sprig and hejoined the army in time to move out of the city gatesfor a last time, and to encamp at Sutton Cheyney inthe evening of August 1485. Less than twentyfour hours later, friendless, masterless and in continu-ous peril of his very life, he was a fugitive from Tudorvengeance, fleeing south and east towards temporarysanctuary in Colchester.

Over the next two years, Francis, Viscount Lovell,again became the shadow-man of Plantagenet history.His name is associated with minor, and unsuccessful,rebellions in Worcestershire, Yorkshire and Lancashire,before he is seen emerging in Burgundy, where Marga-ret, Duchess of Burgundy, sister of Edward IV andRichard III, and last-surviving source of politicalpower for the Yorkist claim to the throne, continuedto plot and pay for schemes to dethrone the Welshusurper. Here, in the Spring of 1487, he was joined byJohn de la Pole, Earl of L and, together, the twoslipped over to Ireland the old Yorkist power-base

and with 2,000 German mercenaries led by an ex-perienced captain, Martin and several thou-sand wild Irishmen under the Earl of Kildare, sailedeastwards to land on the Lancashire coast on June 1487. With them came a young boy who, they claimed,was Edward, Earl of Warwick, son of George of Clar-ence and the true heir to the crown who came to claimhis own.

Twelve days later after an untidy campaign ofmarching and countermarching, the army led by Lin-coln and met Lancaster’s one great general,John de Vere, Earl of Oxford near Newark in a battlewhich history would name Stoke Field and, after ini-tial success, the Yorkists were thoroughly and finallyrouted. Many of the Irish were trapped against thebroad current of the River Trent and its waters ran redwith their blood for miles downstream, others fled to-wards Lincoln and were caught and hanged on

gibbets all along the road to this spurious refuge, andin the centre of the city itself. Henry Tudor was intenton showing his people what happened to those whorebelled against his beneficent rule.

Lincoln, with Schwartz and his men, died on thefield; the boy pretender turned out to be a commonercalled Simnel and he was put to work as ascullion in the King’s kitchens; but the most painstak-ing search among the bodies of the fallen failed to un-earth the corpse of Francis Lovell. The shadow-manhad, once again, disappeared. This time, however,there would be no second-coming for the ViscountLovell, Knight of the Garter, and close friend of thelast Plantagenet King. His story proper ends in thebloody aftermath of Stoke Field, but an ancient tradi-tion holds that he was run to earth in his family seat ofMinster hiding in a secret cellar, and there hewas walled up on Henry Tudor’s orders and left tostarve to death. True or not, Francis Lovell, last of theMiddleham Paladins, was never seen again.

Sources and Author’s Notes.As always, I have made full use of the Society’s

central Library, courtesy of Carolyn Hammond andam grateful to her and to Peter for their ever-availablehelp and advice.

The source-documents I found most useful in pre-paring this article were

by J.S. Roskell, [Bulletin of John RylandsLibrary.]

Drawn Up Will of by DanielWilliams. [Leicestershire Archaeological SocietyTransactions,

The Life and Times of Francis by [Booklet produced by the West Mid-

lands Branch of the Society,

Tbe Political Career of Francis Viscount by JoannaM. Williams [Article in The Ricardian.]

Together with various sources from my own library,mainly

North-Eastern England during Wars of Roses by A.J.Pollard

Richard III by Paul Murray Kendall

And my own Crowns and Deceivers.

Note: I have modernised all the Olde Englyshequotations used in the hope of making them more easilyintelligible to today’s readers. If any purists object to this,my apologies.

Winter, 1998 Ricardian Register

Fields’ Royal Blood: Richard III and theMystery Princes, Regan Books, 1998, $25.00

Imagine Hoffman, Mario Puzo, DominickDunne, Charlie Rose, Ephron, and dozens ofother luminaries turning out to celebrate a new bookdefending Richard III. It happened last October,when Hollywood attorney Fields’ R o y a lBlood: Richard III and the Mystery of Princes was re-leased by Regan Books. For Ricardians resigned toseeing their hero dumped on by the world’s all-timegreatest playwright, a saint, and every columnist look-ing for a metaphor for egregious wrongdoing, this wasa welcome change.

Some Ricardians, watching the media hoopla withmingled elation and bemusement, had another ques-tion: who is this Fields, and why is he writ-ing a book about Richard III?

The Harvard-trained Fields needs no introductionto those in the entertainment business, and especiallyto those in the field of entertainment law. His clientlist includes the Beatles, Hoffman, JohnTravolta, James Cameron, Tom Cruise, WarrenBeatty, and almost every major studio. He defendedSteven Spielberg and the Dreamworks Studio in thelawsuit over the Amistad script, and was retained byParamount to argue the appeal of Art Buchwald’shigh-profile lawsuit against Eddie Murphy overComing to America. He met his wife, art consultantBarbara Guggenheim, while defending her in a law-suit brought against her by Sylvester Stallone. Ac-cording to the Harvard Law Bulletin, “[Hisreputation as a legendary litigator is based on stellarperformances in the courtroom and at the negotiatingtable, in high-profile cases often involving huge sumsof Hollywood money. He is also famous as the lawyerable to argue any side of the issue, for any industryparty, and win...” Vanity Fair put it even more suc-cinctly, calling Fields “the most feared man inHollywood.”

So, just why is this legal powerhouse taking a breakfrom celebrity cases to take on Richard III? Not sur-prisingly, the reasons are both compelling andcomplex.

“I’ve always been interested in English history,”Fields explained in a recent telephone interview, add-ing that he has also read and seen all of Shakespeare,including Richard III. “It’s fascinating, and very goodtheater,” Fields says of Richard III, “but I was leftwith the feeling that the guy had been more or less

Laura

piled on. Some years ago, I read The Daughter of Time,and then somewhere along the line someone gave mea copy of Walpole’s Historic Doubts. Besides winningcases for the rich and famous, Fields is a novelist having written two novels, The Sunset Bomber (1986)and The Lawyer’s Tale under the pseudonymD. Kincaid. After the publication of The Lawyer’sTale, Fields’ 92-year-old father, a retired surgeon,challenged him by asking when was he going to dosomething worthwhile with his life. “My father is aman who honors scholarship,” Fields explained. “Inaddition to being a surgeon, he has multiple interestsand has published articles on other topics like eco-nomics, for example. Responding to his father’s chal-lenge, Fields began work on Royal Blood the next day.What made him pick Richard III? “I can’t think ofanything more worthwhile than the search for thetruth.” Fields dedicated Royal to his father, now97, and his mother, 86.

Street Journal reviewer Ned Crabb describedRoyal Blood as “a most fascinating book astep-by-step lawyer’s brief using evi-dence in an attempt to solve one of the great mysteriesof Western history.” Fields begins with an overview ofthe factors to be considered in an effort to determineguilt or innocence: motive, opportunity, means, andproclivity. In subsequent chapters, Fields weaves to-gether a re-telling of the events of Richard’s life andan analysis of the available evidence, in which he looksat these four factors as well as the reliability of thesources. “Many of the sources of information arehighly suspect, if not completely unreliable. Moreover,we are faced not only with determining who commit-ted the crime, but even whether a crime was commit-ted. The princes disappeared; but it is by no meanscertain that they were killed by anyone,” Fields warnsus in Chapter II, “Solving a Murder.”

Did Fields approach the research for this book research that spanned four years and two continents

as counsel for the defense, or as an impartial ob-server? “I was committed to bringing out the truth,”says Fields. “Although my gut told me that Richardwas innocent, I intended to approach it like a law case,and to go where the evidence took me. If it pointed toRichard’s guilt, that was the book I was going towrite.” Fields began his investigations unaware of theexistence of the Richard III Society. “I think I readabout the Society in the introduction to one of thebooks I read, early on probably Charles Ross’s bi-ography,” Fields recollects. He joined the Society in

Ricardian Register 11 Winter,

1994 and was a regular user non-fiction library,sending couriers from his Century City law tolibrarian Helen Maurer’s home in Mission andback in his search for sources. “The Society library is agreat resource, especially for articles, and Helen rer went out of her way to be helpful,” Fields com-ments, adding that he and his wife Barbara havecontributed to the research library fund.

Fields read widely to prepare himself to writeRoyal Blood (“I think I’ve probably read just about ev-ery book written about Richard III”), and made re-peated trips to England to see some of the originalsource documents and to revisit key sites. Because hewas emotionally drawn to the defense but still strug-gling to maintain objectivity, Fields refrained fromcontacting the Society in England. “I wanted to dothis on my own,” Fields explained. “I was also verysurprised by my reception at libraries and at the sites Ivisited over there. I thought there would be some re-sentment of me as an American working on this, buteveryone was very welcoming.”

Pacing the Tower of London, Fields says, gave hima good feel for many of the issues involved in the tra-ditional accounts of the murder of the Princes, espe-cially what he called “the absurdity” of the notion thatthe Princes would have been buried under one stair-case, dug up, and then re-buried under another stair-case to bring them closer to the chapel. 1 visited thecity of York and Middleham Castle years ago, whilestationed in England during the Korean War. Emo-tionally, though, the key site for Fields was Bosworth.“Standing on top of that hill, thinking that the courseof history was changed by what happened there, I hada feeling I can’t describe. I tried to imagine what itmust have been like, seeing the enemy approachingand knowing that any minute Northumberland couldattack from the rear. It was a tremendously movingexperience.”

While in England, Fields’ research also took himto the British Museum, the College of Arms, sor Castle, and the Society of Antiquaries. “The peo-ple at the Society of Antiquaries were just helpful,” says Fields, “and went out of their tobring portraits out of storage. They even volunteeredthat they had x-rays of the Broken Sword portrait,and dragged them out for me to look at.”

Fields’ letters on behalf of his clients have been de-scribed as “notoriously stinging.” Echoes of this canbe found in some of his comments about Alison Weir,whose 1992 book, The Princes in the raisedU.S. Ricardian hackles when it was released here in1994 and has annoyed us ever since. Fields’ researchpredates his first reading of Weir’s book, but her abuseof the sources clearly irks him. “Even the traditionalhistorians, like Gairdner, try to be even-handed in de-scribing Richard,” he observed, “but Weir goes for the

pejorative every chance she gets. She had absolutely nobasis for forming the conclusions she drew.” Fields re-lentlessly demolishes Weir’s arguments, which at onepoint he says “defy logic and common sense,” alongwith her credibility, chapter by chapter and point bypoint.

Along the way to publication, Fields had the oblig-atory Ricardian author’s manuscript setback. Heplaced pages of his hand-written manuscript on thetop of his car and then drove to his office, with monthsof work fluttering away behind him. His wife decidedto copy the technique employed by the police whenthey attempted to recover Bobbitt’s husband’ssevered penis (they threw hot dogs out of the windowof a police cruiser and searched the areas where theylanded). She placed a pile of soggy newspapers on topof the car and re-drove the route, stopping and search-ing where papers blew off. In the case of the Fieldsmanuscript, alas, it didn’t work.

Where did Fields’ four years of research and twoyears of writing bring him at the end? There is nothingnew in Richard III being acquitted in a courtroomsimulation, after all there was a mock trial in Eng-land involving a former Lord Chancellor and twowell-known solicitors in 1984, and two trials held be-fore U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 1996and 1997 and was acquitted in I on other hand, have repeatedly pointedout that the standards of evidence in law and in historyare different. “We must assess RichardIII’s guilt on a’balance of probabilities,” Alison Weirsaid at a 1994 book-signing engagement. Unlike Weir

whose confident assertion that she has “solved” themystery of the Princes strikes Fields as unjustified

Fields gives us no solutions, only probabilities.But he’s confident that, if Richard III were tried in anO.J. Simpson-style wrongful-death suit, where thestandard is preponderance of evidence” (in otherwords, more likely than not) rather than “reasonabledoubt,” Richard would prevail.

Royal Blood has been a hit at the cash register, goinginto its fourth printing within three months of beingissued. What’s more, Fields reports, a number of ple with no previous interest in the subject are readingthe book and getting caught up in the controversy. Theseeds of Fields’ next project were sown this one:Fields hints that he’s taking a long look at Shake-speare authorship question from a strict perspectiveof lawyerly objectivity, of course.

But if are very lucky, some of Fields’ ce-lebrity clients and friends may consider the possibilitythat the most effective defense of Richard III will notbe in the courtroom, or even on the printed page, buton screen. And, if the most-feared man in Hollywoodwere to drop a hint or two in the ears of some of thoseclients, just imagine what might happen

Winter, 12 Register

NOTE: Some Ricardians have asked about the absence offootnotes in Royal Blood. Fields’ original manuscriptcontainedfootnotes, which the publisher declined to publish.However, readers note the line on thecopyrightpage: “Footnotes are available upon request. Pleasewrite to Regan Books, 10 E. Street, New York, NY10022. Fields has also to provide a copy of the

footnotes for publication on the American Branch web site.The interesting on the end-papergenealogy chart whichhas Margaret improbably her own

father, who died when she was an infant, is an uncorrectedtypesetting error.

SOURCES:Julia Collins, “The L.A. Litigator,” Harvard Law Bulle-

tin, Spring 1998.

Ned Crabb, “Bookmarks: Royal Blood,” StreetJournal, October

Fields, Royal Blood: III and the Mysteryof the Princes. Regan Books, 1998.

Fields, telephone interview with LauraBlanchard, January

Andrew Jacobs, “A Night Out with Fields:Taking the Case of Richard III,” The New YorkTimes, October

Michael Shnayerson, “Love in Fast Lane,” Fair, December 1993.

met with good reviews in the popular press andthe book is selling well. But how will Ricardians react? We’reaccustomed, after all, to going over books about Richard IIIwith a fine-toothed comb. What will we have to say about it?

The members of the Society’s e-mail discussion list had a listof specific questions-and several people have sent away forthe footnotes to see where Fields has gotten some of hisinformation. Most of the online members who read it so farhave quarreled with one point or another few of us reallythought the final what-if chapter was necessary. But, welargely enjoyed it for its unique perspective that of a man,accustomed to taking any side in a dispute and arguing itsuccessfully, stepping back and analyzing the evidence asdispassionately as he is able. (And, for some of us, it’s deliciousto see him reduce Alison Weir to a heap of dusty rubble.)

Ricardians who prefer the more readings ofprofessional historians will find that Fields has occasionallyreduced a complex issue to a misleading simplicity. That’s alawyer’s job, after all. But, despite its occasional flaw, RoyalBlood stands as a refreshing antidote to Desmond Seward

England’s Black Legend) and Alison Weir (ThePrinces in Tower) every bit as likely to engage theattention of the general reader, and a lot closer to the facts.

Certainly, Fields has entranced the reviewers. Here are somesamples:

“ARE YOU WEARY modern political swamp, and thespectacle of Washington lawyers dancing on the head of anequivocation? I have a superb antidote. Return with me to thedays when defending your political position meant strappingon a suit of steel, and, wielding a sword that could bisect ahorse, slashing your way past a throng of chaps similarlytailored in steel and armed with hideous, evisceratingweapons. (And not a lawyer in sight. Return to the Age, via Royal Richard III and y of Princes,by Fields (a lawyer, oddly enough). Mr. Fields has

R E V I E W S O Fwritten a most fascinating book a step by step lawyer’sbrief using evidence in an attempt to solveone of the great mysteries of Western history.“-Tbe WallStreet Journal“Shakespeare (a Tudor playwright, after all) said RichardIII did it. Contemporary writers such as JosephineTey and Elizabeth Peters would argue the reverse. Andhistorians have weighed in on both sides. In another salvoin the bookish battle over whether or not Richard III killedhis royal nephews in order to consolidate his power, LosAngeles entertainment attorney Fields offers a remarkablythorough and intricate history. After reading Fields’examination, readers will find themselves regarding Britishicons Hastings, the Tudors, Dorset, etc. with newappreciation. Fields sprinkles this erudite look at

England with enough informative asides tomake the complexities of the Wars of the Roses a little lessoverwhelming It’s easy to see why Fields is such asuccessful lawyer-his account is masterfully argued andexpertly researched. It may be a little much for the casualreader, but then revisionists rarely are casual

Weekly“Fields argues his case with the skill of a top litigator Aswe’re drawn into the Case of the Two Princes, we embarkon a medieval mystery with some of the allure of Eco’s Name of Rose and dive also into the murkydepths of conspiracy theory and political intrigue. Switchthe time and setting, and Royal Blood reads like one ofthose labyrinthine, and endlessly gripping,Who-shot-JFK’ hc ronicles....By molding his tale into abated-breath whodunit, he serves up history the best waypossible. Suspense, mood, anecdote-Fields employs anovelist’s tools, as Norman Mailer did in examining theGary case, to give us the blood and spirit as well asthe facts of the time.“-Book

Keglster 13 Winter, 1998

C H A R L I E IN T E R V I E W W I T H

ertram Fields, the author and the Mystery of the Princes, was inter-

viewed by Public Television’s Charlie Rose on hisshow in mid-December. Fields was introduced as “asuccessful entertainment lawyer in Hollywood”who has represented every major studio as well asprivate clients such as Tom Cruise, Warren Beatty,Mike Nichols and Hoffman.

Rose explained that Fields had taken five years tocomplete the book, in which he applied centurylegal techniques to the century case of RichardIII and the mystery of the princes in the Tower.

According to Fields, his father, who was 92 at thetime, was the stimulus behind the book. Fields said,“My father asked me ‘when will you do something se-rious with your life?’ I thought, I have spent 40 yearstrying cases and have written two novels wasn’tthat serious enough? That’s exactly what he thought.‘You must contribute to the body of knowledge (to beserious)’ was the older man’s response.

“Why Richard III?” Rose asked. Fields replied thathe had always been interested in English history, and“Richard III got a bad rap. The winners typicallywrite the history the Tudors took over and had aterrific propaganda machine going. They created amonster humpbacked, withered arms, limpingacross the stage, and none of it was true.”

He went on to say that Richard could never havehandled a charging horse in one hand and a lance inthe other if he had a withered arm. He mentionedhow portraits of Richard had been altered later toshow him in a bad light as well.

“I approached it (the book) as I would a law case:We were trying Richard III. We look at motive, op-portunity, proclivity to kill, other suspects. The con-clusion: No jury in the world would convict this manbased on the evidence. Can I prove he didn’t do it?No,” Fields said.

Rose turned the subject to Shakespeare’s portrayaland asked Fields if Richard might have had a libelcase against the poet. Fields replied: “If we didn’t havethe Constitution that we have here in the U.S., hecould be guilty of libel. Shakespeare’s version of Rich-ard was clearly libelous, but he had only the Tudorhistorians to believe Unfortunately, he has givenus this picture of Richard, but I don’t blame him; Iblame the Tudor historians. He was serving the King’s[Ed. Note: actually the Queen)!] interest. Henry VIIhad almost no claim to the throne, therefore he had to

Anne Easter Smith

create this myth that Richard was this terrible guy.Much easier in those days. Henry VIII and Elizabethcarried it on.”

The discussion turned to whether Fields believesShakespeare wrote all the plays and Fields explainedhis theory for believing Shakespeare was not the au-thor. Rose showed a clip of a recent interview withTom Stoppard (screenwriter for Shakespeare in Love)where Stoppard was adamant Shakespeare was indeedthe author.

“You don’t think of this as fiction, do you?” Roseenquired next, holding up as if not sure.

Fields was indignant: “No, no, it’s not fiction. It ishopefully an objective analysis of probably whathappened.”

“An analysis of a novel [Shakespeare’s play] then,in a sense,” Rose countered.

“Richard was a real character all of them are realcharacters. It is a real-life mystery,” Fields asserted.

Rose finally asked the burning question: “Who doyou think killed the princes?”

“If they killed,” was Fields’ quick response. “Iam not even sure they were; they may have come backas adults.” He went on to say that if he had to lay theblame of a murder at someone’s door, “it would be theDuke of Buckingham. He was an unstable, mercurialman who wanted desperately to be king. He had thebetter motive than Richard; he had the opportunity ashe stayed behind in London when Richard was away;he had the power and the proclivity. If they werekilled, I would bet on Buckingham!”

The last part of the interview dealt with Fields’writing habits and what his next project was (whowrote the Shakespeare plays). He said he had been alittle fearful that he would meet with resentment inEngland because of his topic when he was there to doresearch for Royal Blood, but he said “they weremarvelous!”

Rose then asked Fields about the discovery of theboy skeletons in the Tower. Fields explained that thediscovery made the Traditionalists certain thatThomas More was correct, because “they were foundwhere More said they were buried. On the contrary,they were found where More said they were not, be-cause he says in another sentence the bodies weremoved from the staircase to no one knows where, be-cause according to More, Richard did not want aking’s sons buried there.”

Winter, 1998 14 Ricardian Register

Q U E E N S’ CO L L E G E, CA M B R I D G E

is summer I had the opportunity to spend aweek in Cambridge and much of my time was

devoted to watching punts on the river, having tea,gallivanting to fifteenth-century wool towns andJacobean houses, and visiting various colleges ofhistoric interest. In this last pursuit, I was very anx-ious to visit Queens’ College, which was founded in1448 by Margaret of Anjou. is known forthe famously misnamed Mathematical Bridge, thebeauty of its “backs,” Old Court which is an almostuntouched example medieval brickwork, andthe sundial that dates from 1733. Famous membersof the college include Erasmus, Bishop JohnFisher, and T. H. White. However, the college’sheraldic symbol of the white boar is what will drawthe interest of Ricardians.

The official name of the college is The Queen’sCollege of Saint Margaret and Saint Bernard and theinspiration behind the founding of the college wasfrom Andrew Dokett, who was granted a charter ofincorporation in 1446, for a college to be built be-tween the present Lane and TrumpingtonStreet.

This college was to be fairly small, the society con-sisting of a president and four fellows. Dokett andhis fellows decided that the proposed site was toosmall and asked for a revocation of the charter in1447, a new site was obtained and a second charterwas issued on August

Margaret of Anjou now enters the story. Possiblywith the encouragement of Cardinal Beaufort, thequeen decided to take an interest in Dokett’s newfoundation and the patroness of the newcollege, which was now named The Collegeof Saint Margaret and Saint Bernard. In order to dothis, the second charter was revoked and Margaretwas given a license on March 30, 1448 to issue herown charter for foundation, which she did on April15, 1448. The first stone of the college was laid onthat day by the Chamberlain, Sir John lock. Dokett was fortunate enough to be favored byboth the Lancastrians and the Yorkists and so, whenEdward IV married Elizabeth in 1464,she became the new patroness of the college in 146.5.The first statutes of the college were presented byElizabeth in 1475.

What is particular interesting to members of thesociety about however, is not the associa-tions of Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville

with the college, but with the patronage of Rich-ard III and Anne Richard and Anne

Sharon

endowed the college with the rents of the lands con-fiscated from the earl of Oxford and gave the collegevestments for use in the chapel as well as the right touse the white boar as one of the symbols of thecollege.

Since the earl of Oxford’s lands were returned tohim after the accession of Henry VII, the only re-maining visible symbols of the interest that Richardand Anne took in College are the vestmentsand the boar, which is still one of the heraldic symbolsused by the college today.

Other colleges at Cambridge are certainly worthseeing and Christ’s and St. have strong associa-tions with Margaret Beaufort. However:Ricardian travels take you to East Anglia, aQueens’ College will be most rewarding.

if yourvisit to

N E W A T

Laura

Here are some brief updates on the American Branchweb site:

Parent Society now online. Use the link from ourhomepage, or go directly to check out the information on Society programs andactivities in England.

History in the Comic Mode. The online proceedings ofthe May 1998 symposium in honor of Charles T. Wood.Text of most of the papers, photos, (hear A. J.Pollard poke a little fun at some of our most cherishedbeliefs about Middleham Castle).

Middleham Castle. A virtual tour, history, more, linkedfrom our travel section

Titulus Regius. The text of this important Act ofParliament, linked from our online library:

r3. bookcase/

Coming soon. Onl ine ed i t ions of Hol inshed , memoirs, the Cely papers. Also in the

works: George Buck’s and William Cornwallis’s (but these will take some

Continued popularity. The site continues to receive file requests from 350-400 people every day

and is an important source of new members.

Ricardian Register 15 Winter, 1998

(feel free to come early and stay late if y o u rschedule allows and if you wish to see the ofNew Orleans at leisure)

Hotel: Doubletree Hotel Lakeside, 3838 N.Causeway Blvd., Metair ie LA 70002, 836-5253. Please mention the Richard SocietyAGM to obtain the conference rate.

Conference Rates: $109 per night, single ordouble; $149 per night suite; plus applicable roomtaxes, currently 11.75%.

More details as they become available!

R I C A R D I A N P R O F I L E : G . B A T C H

Dianne G. Batch, our recently elected American Branch

Dianne is retired from employment now but was a

Secretary, leads a busy and interesting life.

Hospital Clinical for many years, in Vir-

She has been aRicardian since 1980 and attended each AGM since LosAngeles in 1991. When Michigan formed a Chapter in

ginia and in Michigan. She terms herself a “single se-

1990, Dianne became very active. She served asModerator of the Chapter for two years (1996-1997) and

nior,” having divorced after 37 years of marriage in

chaired the AGM in 1994 when it was held at theDearborn Inn. She currently serves the Michigan AreaChapter as Membership Chairman and creator of the

1994. She has a son and a daughter who are both

traveling library exhibit. She has prepared and deliveredprograms for the Chapter meetings and contends that

married, with children. Her son, Gibson, is employed

the program presenter enjoys it more (and may learn

with 3M and lives in St. Paul, MN.

more) than the audience.

Daughter Virginia is living in W. Lafayette, Indi-ana, where her husband is with the ROTC program atPurdue University.

Dianne has many interests besides Medieval His-tory. She is a member of AAUW, where she is cur-rently the Publicity Chairman. She belongs to aninvestor’s group, two gourmet groups, the Needle Artsgroup (“everything legal with a needle”), and is on the

Board of Directors for the Is-landers Theatre Club. Shehas directed, produced andacted in many of their plays.She is directing The DiningRoom for a May 1999production.

In her spare time, Diannelikes to read, and as you mayguess, her choice of readingmatter is wide and varied.Classic British mystery

Janet

ers vie with Napoleonic War novels and Anne fantasy for a spot on her nightstand. She

collects Waterford crystal in pairs and has about 90patterns (at last count).

Dianne confesses her computer skills are still at the

She supports many animal

beginner level. She loves to send and receive e-mail

rights groups, probably due to the influence of her

and is getting up the nerve to get on the Ricardiane-mail List. Her new opportunity as a Board member

four cats with whom she shares her condominium on

should have her expanding her computer competencein a hurry.

Grosse Ile, just south of Detroit.

She can’t wait to hear more about otherRicardian members and learn how their interestscoincide.

Winter, Ricardian Register

November, 1998

I attach information about the new second and updatededition of Dr. Peter Foss’s Field of Redemore,originally published in 1990. This is by far the mostcomprehensive and detailed study of all the availableevidence relating to the Battle of Bosworth, 1485, andincludes possibly the most informed and authoritativeattempt to locate the exact place of death of KingRichard III.

also attach information about a commemoration to beheld at Dadlington this year, on the anniversary of thebattle. If any of your members are in England on 22nd

and intend to visit Bosworth Field, they wouldbe most welcome to join Dr. and other Ricardians

this exploration the for the battle.

wishes,Tim Parry

Dear

After an initial jolt of fear about what it might be, Igreeted the big white envelope with the longoverdue Fall at last. (I understand productionproblems, and would not have mentioned it, but you didin your Letter from the Editor, so it seems OK). I gothome late, from a really unusual t e m passignment, and was tired, but 1 read it from cover tocover before succumbing to the need to sleep. GeoffreyRichardson’s article on was superb, but Iexpected nothing less. else who contributeddid a great job, also.

One item really piqued my urge, however, andthat is I am writing this. The item was SiobhanBurke’s review of A and

L i o n . f o l l o w s i s Encounter with a (Potential) Real I would liketo mention, however, that Judith Riley’s middle(maiden) name is with an not “Markle,”with an “a.”

I first met then Merkle when we were incomingfreshmen at the University of California at Berkeley inthe Fall semester, 1958. She had the misfortune ofsitting next to me in some dreary course, which was oneof the items where one is basically instructed to “chooseone from Column A or two from Column whichwere core requirements for eventual matriculation

(which I ultimately d’d not accomplish). I noticed therather ordinary-looking young lady, and after a fewsessions ofwatching her sketch horses (a passion of mine

she was much better at it than I was at any time)instead of taking notes, I struck up a conversation.

Horrors! I learned that, not only was she better atdrawing horses than I, she was also vastly moreintelligent than I. She told me that her father was aprofessor at the University’s Livermore Laboratory(where the first atom had recently been split into itscomponent parts), and that she was a faculty brat. Well,I didn’t mind that. We sat out the whole drearysemester, and never had another class together for theremainder of my spotty academic career. Occasionally, Iwould see her on campus, and we would exchangepleasantries. I probably never would have given her asecond thought in later life, had she not told me ananecdote of the sort that tends to stick in my memory,and strike a resonant chord with some of ourmembers who dwell in the atmosphere of

As a faculty brat, she was naturally invited to a number offunctions that were not open to the children of ordinaryfolks. At one such function, she was introduced to anolder professor, of the absent-minded variety. Thegentleman was on his best behavior, of course, and hestarted the conversation by saying, “So you’re

boy.” Over the years, of course, I would thinkof that story and say to myself, “I wonder whateverbecame of Judy Merkle.” She eventually assumed thedignity of the name Judith; I myself never grew upsufficiently to make that transition, although I use thename on official documents.

About 30 years later, I got my answer. I was working inSan Francisco, and visited my favorite discountbookstore, on the ground level of my office building. Iwas gazing at the new fiction shelf, when the name“Judith Merkle ey” leapt out at me from a hardcoverbook. I thought “No, couldn’t be! But, what if . That book, ofcourse, Vision I picked it upoff the shelf and turned it over, there was a picture. It wasthe face I remembered, slightly older. The bonestructure had matured nicely, the hair was styled, she hadslimmed down a bit in short, she was beautiful, butstill recognizable as my long-ago classmate! I was soproud: I read the capsule biography, and learned thatshe was a professor of English at one of the prestigious

Ricardian Register 17 Winter, 1998

private universities in Southern California. I hadexpected her to have become a scientist, but English isOK.

I didn’t buy the book in hardcover, but I did pur-chase it a year or two later, when it was out in paper-back. I found the subject matter and treatment a bit“fey,” as I understood the term just a little bitother-worldly, to have been written by the very ear-nest young woman I remembered, but we all changeover time. I bore little psychical resemblance to theperson I was in 1958 I had mellowed out quite abit, myself. When I finished the book, I sent it to mydaughter; I made a point of letting my daughter knowthat I had actually met the author. A few years later,when my daughter was home again, we found the sec-ond book, In Pursuit of Green Lion, in paperback, ata chain bookstore. We bought it immediately andfought over who was going to read it first. I won.

Some years later yet, when the Northern CaliforniaChapter was charged with the responsibility of host-ing the 1998 AGM, I happened to look at the comingevents listing in the book section of the local newspa-per. The name “Merkle Riley” jumped out at me onemore time. Ms. Merkle Riley was doing the usualtour for her third book, and was appearing at a store inLivermore, her native turf. I wrote a letter to Ms.Merkle Riley in care of the bookstore. I reminded herof our earlier brief acquaintance and suggested thatshe just might like to be the guest speaker at the 1998AGM.

Much to my surprise, she responded, by personalletter. I have the letter still. It is usually pinned to thebulletin board in my hobby room, next to my extracopy of the NPG portrait poster of Richard (the un-framed one). She said that she just might be inter-ested. “Actually, I keep circling around Richard III’stime I’d love to come and speak to your group.There’s some wonderful stuff from the 15th Century.And besides, it would be great fun! Let me know along time ahead

Ms. Merkle Riley could be available as an AGMspeaker, if anyone is interested in pursuing this lead.She has written at least one more book since then, butI have not read it, unfortunately.

Keep up the good work on the Register it is get-ting better and better all the time.

Judy CA

Dear Carole:I found this in Dear Abby and thought we might use it inthe Register.

is in response to woman who nameher son even his name won’t be

identical to kings do it all time.

please inform woman numberafter a king’s name is a historicaldesignation only. It’snot part of his name and is not used during his

king known as Hen y was called Hen his time. Although be was son of

King be wasn’t even to kingsHen y I He would have bad to be

Hen y in to carry number after his name.

Unless mother plans to crown her son king (inwhich case be would be not third), shemust use her husband’s and father-in-law? exactname in order to her son a III.

Jacqueline CA

Letters to Membership Chair:I read with some interest your article in the RicardianRegister about the theater in Monmouth, Maine. For anumber of years the American Savoyards performedGilbert and Sullivan operettas there and I don’t think[my wife and I] missed a one.I wanted to reply to your query regarding the history ofperformances of III which changed the timesetting. I don’t know whether you are familiar with abook which was published in 1992 entitled Richard’s

A Stage History of Richard III. waswritten by one of my former students, Scott Colley.Scott was most recently dean and provost atHampden-Sydney College and has gone to Georgiato become a college president. I think his title pretty welldescribes the book.

Specifically, without rereading the entire book, Inoted that in 1973 Al played the role with theTheater Company of Boston and I will quote a fewsentences from Scott’s book. “The opening was pre-sented as a cocktail party, and Richard appeared at theedge of this gathering to deliver his lines. Richard andBuckingham exchanged microphones to address thecrowd which arrives with the Lord Mayor. The cos-tuming was in harmony withthe unusual staging: KingEdward IV wore a dou-ble-breasted suit,Buckingham neat flan-nels, Queen Elizabeth aside-split evening dress. Yetone character, for some rea-son. in a

himself wore a heavyturtleneck sweater. the Monmouth

Winter, Ricardian Register

In a later production in New York againwith Al in the latter part of the play Richardappeared in a “rakish black beret.” Other costumes“ranged from corduroy suits to pullover sweaters.”

Sincerely,George B. Oliver

On the same subject as George Oliver’s letter,an from Bill Shapiro:

Some years ago, the English Shakespeare Com-pany presented a cycle of Richard and Henry plays onconsecutive nights in Chicago under the collective ti-tle of “The Wars of the Roses.” All were performedin nontraditional settings. I saw Henry V and Rich-ard III. At the R3 “I survived the Warsof the Roses” T-shirts were on sale.

Henry V was set in roughly the Vietnam War era.Henry wore army fatigues and gave the “Once moreinto the breach” speech while standing on a tank.

Michael Pennington played Henry as a cynical,war weary veteran rather than an exuberant youngconqueror. In fact, they stood the Bard on his head bymaking Henry an antiwar play.

R3 was even stranger. The play was set in the pro-hibition era, and Richard was a gangster. (I don’tremember who played the role, but he was excellent.)Richard and his henchman wore pin striped suits,black shirts, fedoras and shoulder holsters. However,the play reverted to medieval times for the fight be-tween Richard and Henry. The stage suddenly wentdark, and when it lit up again, two armored knightswere dueling with broadswords. The duel was con-ducted in slow motion with the Barber “Adagio forStrings” as background music. As weird as this mayseem, it was very effective.

Edward granted a sum of 500 marks per annum forthe care of the boys. The Duke was little heard of dur-ing the remainder of Edward’s reign but was instru-mental in elevating Richard, Duke of Gloucester, tothe throne. Richard then made the Duke a knight ofthe Garter and constable of England. He was prom-ised the inheritance of the Bohuns, Earl of Hereford.When the promise was not forthcoming, the Dukeinto into a conspiracy to place the (so-called) Earl ofRichmond on the throne (do we detect Morton’s handin this?). The Duke mounted a campaign, known asBuckingham’s Rebellion, but his associates, amongthem the Courtneys, who were to back the Duke upwere unable to do this and he found himself alone andfleeing. He sought asylum in the home of an old ser-vant, Humphrey Banaster. betrayed theduke but was not rewarded by King Richard, who de-clared “he, who could be untrue to a good master,would be false to all others.” The Duke was married toKatherine Woodville, sister of Queen Elizabeth.They had four surviving children, of whom Edwardwas his successor.

After the Duke’s death his fortunes were forfeitedto the Crown. The family fortunes were restored uponthe death of King Richard. Henry VII restored all ti-tles, which had belonged to his father and passedthem onto Edward, who became the 3rd and lastDuke of Buckingham. Edward served Henry well buthad the misfortune to run up against Cardinal Woley.The 3rd Duke was arrested on a slim charge of trea-son, found guilty and sentenced to die on Tower Hillon May 17, 1521. A bill of attainder followed the

of the Duke and, like his father before him,all his honors were forfeited to the Crown. TheStaffords continued on until Roger Stafford. who diedcirca 1640, and the male line became extinct.

Whatever its esthetic merits, I have a far more vividmemory of this Richard than of several recent andcomparatively tame traditional performances.

Shapiro

response to A&E production, “Tales the Bloody Tower, which was produced by

Edward Windsor

In his book The Deceivers, Geoffrey Richardsonmakes a strong case for the 2nd Duke being the mur-derer of the Princes in the Tower.

I wonder if Edward Windsor has mistaken theStafford Buckinghams for the Villiers family, alsoDukes of Buckingham and great favorites of the Stu-art Clan. George Villiers is a villan of sorts in ForeverAmber. Perhaps Edwadr should look into his charac-ter; he could use rehabilitation.

November -Jacqueline Bloomquist,

It seems from our on-line discussion that EdwardWindsor, the royal formerly known as Prince, is going totry to rehabilitate the 2nd Duke of Buckingham.

“Proof” Historical methodologyon the online list

Dear All,Without going into the whole family background

of the Staffords, I thought this information might behelpful to those who wonder about the Duke. He andhis brother Humphrey were wards of Edward IV andgiven in care to his sister Anne, the Duchess of Exeter.

In the past few days a major controversy hasbrewed between members about a new hypothesis putforward by a fellow member, and a new debate seemsto have arisen over the very validity of the worth ofproof for theories. I am not a professional Historian,

Ricardian Register Winter,

nor even a talented amateur, as most members seem tobe. I have not finished my degree yet, but I have takena course in Historical Methodology it was a re-quirement for matriculating to History.

In the course, a great deal of emphasis was placedon producing some evidence for a hypothesis. Thesources that were presented were graded as to their re-liability. Primary sources were best, as well as archeo-logical evidence. Secondary sources and tertiarysources were less desirable. All contemporary sourceswere to be scrutinized, to try to discern their reliabil-ity. I was told by a Professor, who was a much older,wiser man than myself, that a good Historian had a bitof the attributes of a good detective about him, andthat we should try to present the evidence for a theoryas much possible.

Before I was a member, I had a great deal of respectfor this Society. The professors I have studied

Medieval history under even the traditionalists accorded this society some measure of respect. Profes-sional Historians require some evidence to be pre-sented for a hypothesis to be taken seriously. We, as asociety, ought to hold the same standards to ourselvesif we wish to be given some measure of respect fromthe Academic community.

Many people pass us off as a bunch of crackpots al-ready. How does that help Richard, or his reputation?Evidence does not have to be as extensive as Geoffreythinks (although that would be nice and did-n’t have Faith, we wouldn’t belong to this society sothere is obviously a place for faith in ones theories(otherwise you would never stick to them when yourdetractors are picking them apart!

L M L ,Bob Reed

Presenting a special tour:

ENGLAND’S KING RICHARD III

June 21-July

Was Shakespeare’s evil, hunchbacked monster the real Richard III?Or was the last Plantagenet king a renowned warrior, a man loyal tohis brother and friends, an affectionate husband and father, an ableand just statesman? Who was this man whose ill fate it was to reignover a nation weary of wars between the houses of York andLancaster and hovering on the brink of the ‘Renaissance? You areinvited to join us in a search for some of the answers, as we travelback in time to 15th century England and discover some startlingfacts about this much-maligned king.

Our delightfully specialized tour is perfect for those with a keeninterest in Richard III and Britain’s medieval period in general.Sites we will visit having direct associations with Richard IIIinclude such great castles as Warwick, Ludlow, Richmond,Co&burgh, Middleham and more; Gt. &Little Malvern priories;the historical abbeys at Sutton Cheyney

Middleham churches; and Old Gainborough Hall, a finemedieval merchant’s home. Enjoy walking tours of the ancientcities of York and Cambridge; and an excellent guided tour ofBosworth Battlefield, where the Plantagenet reign came to an endwith the death of Richard III. We will share pleasant times with

friends from the English Richard III Society, both informal chatsand interesting talks on the subject of Richard III. Plus a surprise or

Also included in the itinerary will be one of England’s finestmedieval stately homes, Hall; Selby &Battle abbeys; theglorious cathedrals Ely &York; Roman Colchester,and Stamford, the finest Georgian town in England, fairy-taleBodiam Castle; time in the quaint fishing port of Rye, and aleisurely tour through the lovely Cotswolds.

We will travel by comfortable mid-size coach and stay in charmingsmaller hotels and inns, all having a full range of amenities. Therewill be 11 great days of touring, with all admissions,accommodations, breakfasts and evening meals included in the veryaffordable price. Your tour manager/escort will be Linda Treybig,member of the Richard III Society since 1979 and escort of 8previous Ricardian tours. Our groups is limited to 15 persons andwe’d like you to be one! Really experience historical Englandtravelling at a leisurely pace through beautiful countryside andcharming old-world villages, with a small, friendly group who shareyour interests. Do join us for a truly memorable tour!

For further details and brochures, please contact:BEREA TRAVEL BUREAU, Inc., 63 Bridge Street, Berea, OH 44017, phone

l-800-896-5978; fax (440) 243-2236 or Linda Treybig (440)

Winter, 1