Has anyone ever asked why an heir to the English throne has so little documented about his birth and death, let alone his life?
I understand he wasn't heir when he was born, but by all accounts both biased and unbiased, the boy was treasured by his parents so why do we not even know how old he was when he died?
Ps. To whomever did the video...get your head out of Shakespeare and Michael hicks and try reading the Crowland chronicles. Brilliantly contempory and no bias at all.
@Brickastley -Its mainly because in the reign of Henry the Usurper VII, many historical documents were destroyed pertaining to the Yorkists and especially, Richard III.
Edward of Middleham (c. 1473 – 9 April 1484), also known as Edward Plantagenet, was the only son of King Richard III of England and his wife Anne Neville.
Edward of Middleham (c. 1473 – 9 April 1484), also known as Edward Plantagenet, was the only son of King Richard III of England and his wife Anne Neville.
Mary fitz Ranulf (circa 1260, her married name became de Neville.) born circa 1244 at Middleham, Yorkshire, England. She was the daughter of Ralf fitz Ranulf, Lord of Middleham and Anastasia de Percy.
She married Robert (II) de Neville, son of Robert (I) de Neville, Lord of Raby and unknown wife (?), circa 1260 in a Middleham, Yorkshire, England marriage.2 She died before 11 April 1320 at Coverham, Yorkshire, England.1,2 She was buried at Caverham Abbey.
That also is my all time fav book. I love Sharon Kay Penman, Im glad to know that Im not the only one out there.Your the only person I have heard of that likes that book and Ms. penman.
George of Clarence had one son named Edward who, after Henry took the crown, was kept in the tower till he was killed on some trumped up charge. Richard had only one son with Anne, Edward, who died whilst Richard and Anne were at Nottingham and although we cannot be sure of the age of the little boy i do think he was around the age of 10. George never re married he was locked up in the tower and soon executed.
you are counting two children that died whilst young. In fact Anne was still born and the other died 2 weeks or so after birth. Yes you are right a silly mistake on my part. However everything else you have said is wrong.
@mainsqueeze1977 i'm so glad you said that lol i was just getting ready to say the same thing...especially when the person was being all "BIG mistake there" ..when animegirluk knows what she's talking about. Cheers!
Your confusing Richard's and Anne's only son Edward, who died 1484, with a Richard, that might be a bastard son of the King. However, since he was not acknowledged in the King's lifetime (reportedly he was at the eve of Bosworth and told to stay put should the King lose), it can never be known whether he actually was the King's son.
@RoyalSnowbird Where is this info coming from that he had a bastard son named Richard? The only two listed are John of Gloucester and Elizabeth. I see you corrected your own mistake on the dates of Edward, Prince of Wales. Oh dear.
Have a look here at the "Richard III Society's Back to basics, #6" (please google it, links not working): Richard's bastard children are given as John, Katherine and, possibly Richard: "The only proven fact we have for this Richard is that in the Parish register of the Kentish parish of Eastwell there is a notice of the burial of 'Rychard Plantagenet' in 1550. The other details usually cited, that he was acknowledged by Richard on the eve of Bosworth ...
... and was discovered by Sir Thomas Moyle, (the owner of Eastwell), working as a mason on his estate and given a cottage by him, all first appear in print in 1735. There is no evidence that any of this is true, nor that it is untrue. The only other 'fact' we have, that Richard Plantagenet's tomb exists, is certainly not true. This tomb, still in the now ruined Eastwell church, dates from about 1480 and is probably that of Sir Walter Moyle and his wife."
@RoyalSnowbird For one thing her name was Lady Anne Neville; there was no Beauchamp in her name. Her son with Richard III's dates were 1473 – 9 April 1484. He died young. As for the Duke of Clarence, George, he only married Isabella. George and Isabella had a Richard of York but he died young as well. His only surviving children were Margaret, Countess of Salisbury and Edward, 17th Earl of Warwick. Your statement makes absolutely no sense at the end.. he married Anne Beauchamp Neville, huh?
History says Anne was the eldest, and Isabella, the second. My research has found this was not so, which would explain why Clarence was trying to keep her hid. Also a Ricardian. For a long time
A bit trickier than it seems. For one thing, Anne could not be disinherited without doing the same to her sister, George's wife. And even so, Richard's marriage to Anne vastly increased his personal wealth.
Anne Neville is s cypher, even more mysterious than her husband, and people read things into her, projecting their own preconceptions--good and bad.
The Tudor Dynasty was made up of a bunch of usurpers. They had NO right to the english throne. Shakespeare with his lies of Richard III, has spread these lies born out of the propaganda master, Thomas More. Richard III was the rightful king of England who loved Anne very dearly. That is the truth and England would of been much better off with the descendents of Richard III.I never, despite many visits to Westminister Abbey, have and never will, visit the tomb of the usurper, Henry VII.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I do like Margaret and Mary Rose Tudor, Henry VIII's sisters. They were beautiful, brave and extraordinary women.
@noff27 the only one who had a right claim to the english throne was catherine of aragon because of blood relation to the lancaster house through her mother. in my opinion queen isabella in a way was decieved for she thought to marry her daughter for an alliance but in reality the tudors needed stability and to be a believable dynasty and what better way than to marry lancaster descendant into the house of tudor to make its house more stable.
I agree about this family of Welsh brigants but I must defend Shakespeare and even More. Shakespeare was not about telling history but about putting on a show and he based himself on the information he got. More is a bit more guilty but even was a child in 1485 and didn't know much better. Both men BTW suffered from Tudor rule, though More more than Shakespeare, whose father was a persecuted recusant.
@mainsqueeze1977 -Both did suffer from the propaganda machine in the Tudor period, agreed. But More had access to the truth and he twisted it to serve the Tudors. Shakespeare was just an author who couldn't care less about historical accuracy as long as his work was produced.
No, More did not have "access to the truth" - how could he? He was a child in 1485 and wsa brought up in pro-Tudor circles. Sure, he can be blamed for clearly inventing so many details in his account (compare him to Polydore Vergil) but when he did he wasn't writing history either but a sort of moral tract describing the ultimate tyrant, using the badly reputed Richard for that. (And he might even had Henry VII in mind). BTW, he never published his "Richard III".
I did not mean, they suffered from Tudor propaganda but they suffered from the regime. More's father was persecuted by Henry VII, he himself disliked the man and had high hopes for his son but we now how that turned out. Shakespeare's own stance in religious matters is disputed but his father was heavily fined by Elizabeth, that "greatest of all monarchs", for refusing to attend Anglican church services.
Yeah, and look what that usupring dynasty did to England, twisting it beyond recognition, dictacting to people's customs and consciences at whim. The worst dynasty in English history by far.
In order to marry Anne, Richard sacrificed much of her inheritance to his older brother George, who opposed their match. This sacrifice was not financially savvy, which suggests that he did marry her with honest intentions and not for her wealth.
Also after Barnet and Tewksbury she was legally entitled to nothing, being the daughter of a traitorous rebel. Richard marrying her saved her from a life of poverty.
Since I posted that I went to visit england. I was in york looking for an internet cafe and I accidently found the church where Richard came to take Anne for his wife. It was pretty amazing.
Anne and Richard had grown up together even though Richard was gaining a lot out of marrying her Its obvious he cared about her. He wept openly at her funeral and took great pains to find her when Clarence hid her away. And yes you are right he gave in to a lot of Clarence's demands in order to marry her.
I think that Clarence deserves the 'maligned' title much more than Richard III.
TheSassyB 5 months ago
IT'S A NEVILLE!!!!!!!!!
iFinlayMNeville 10 months ago
gg
batalion666 1 year ago
Has anyone ever asked why an heir to the English throne has so little documented about his birth and death, let alone his life?
I understand he wasn't heir when he was born, but by all accounts both biased and unbiased, the boy was treasured by his parents so why do we not even know how old he was when he died?
Ps. To whomever did the video...get your head out of Shakespeare and Michael hicks and try reading the Crowland chronicles. Brilliantly contempory and no bias at all.
Brickastley 1 year ago
@Brickastley -Its mainly because in the reign of Henry the Usurper VII, many historical documents were destroyed pertaining to the Yorkists and especially, Richard III.
noff27 10 months ago
Comment removed
ToriPaigeee 1 year ago
Edward of Middleham (c. 1473 – 9 April 1484), also known as Edward Plantagenet, was the only son of King Richard III of England and his wife Anne Neville.
KurtSteiner 1 year ago
Edward of Middleham (c. 1473 – 9 April 1484), also known as Edward Plantagenet, was the only son of King Richard III of England and his wife Anne Neville.
KurtSteiner 1 year ago
what is the name of that song starring at 3:22
TheNeptunePisces83 1 year ago
God save King Richard and Queen Anne!
lb40713 1 year ago
I just found out she's my Great Grandma x15. Now history all of the sudden got interesting.
slicedalone2 2 years ago
@slicedalone2 - that's impossible - her only child died at age 11, without issue.
cdeTamble 2 years ago
@cdeTamble Its not impossible, Richard III was Earl of Warwicks cousin, still family then
ToriPaigeee 1 year ago
I think maybe you are thinking of:
Mary fitz Ranulf (circa 1260, her married name became de Neville.) born circa 1244 at Middleham, Yorkshire, England. She was the daughter of Ralf fitz Ranulf, Lord of Middleham and Anastasia de Percy.
She married Robert (II) de Neville, son of Robert (I) de Neville, Lord of Raby and unknown wife (?), circa 1260 in a Middleham, Yorkshire, England marriage.2 She died before 11 April 1320 at Coverham, Yorkshire, England.1,2 She was buried at Caverham Abbey.
LeMahu 2 years ago
I love Richard III and Anne Neville, they were so tragic.
InnateNobility 2 years ago
I agree with you, my all time fav book is the sunne in splendour, Sharon penman tells just how tragic their story is in this amaizing book.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
@HayleyLFC85
That also is my all time fav book. I love Sharon Kay Penman, Im glad to know that Im not the only one out there.Your the only person I have heard of that likes that book and Ms. penman.
pikegirl49 1 year ago
@pikegirl49 no your not the only one! yes I love her books, I first read it at 15 and since then have re read it like a hundred times,
HayleyLFC85 1 year ago
Comment removed
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
Comment removed
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
Huh??? You reckon George married Anne who was married to Richard????
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
Clue: do not confuse the two Richard Plantagenets. . .
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
I'm not...
animegirlUK 2 years ago
...so George of Clarence was not married to Anne Beauchamp Neville for very long. . . Your video has many errors in it. Please amend.
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
Comment removed
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
Richard III & Anne Neville's son Edward of Middleham died a child of about 8 or 9 I think.
animegirlUK 2 years ago 2
George of Clarence had one son named Edward who, after Henry took the crown, was kept in the tower till he was killed on some trumped up charge. Richard had only one son with Anne, Edward, who died whilst Richard and Anne were at Nottingham and although we cannot be sure of the age of the little boy i do think he was around the age of 10. George never re married he was locked up in the tower and soon executed.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
Comment removed
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
Comment removed
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
you are counting two children that died whilst young. In fact Anne was still born and the other died 2 weeks or so after birth. Yes you are right a silly mistake on my part. However everything else you have said is wrong.
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago
Comment removed
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
@RoyalSnowbird
It's funny that you lecture others when your posting is so full of errors.
The son of Clarence & Isabel Neville was called Edward and was murdered by Henry Tudor in 1499.
The son of Gloucester & Anne Neville (not Beauchamp Nevill) was also called Edward and died young in 1484.
A bastard son of Gloucester was called Richard and lived up to 1550.
And Clarence married Isabella in 1469 and did not remarry when she died in 1476.
It was Gloucester who married Anne in 1472.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 i'm so glad you said that lol i was just getting ready to say the same thing...especially when the person was being all "BIG mistake there" ..when animegirluk knows what she's talking about. Cheers!
Nicollie1062 8 months ago 2
@RoyalSnowbird
Your confusing Richard's and Anne's only son Edward, who died 1484, with a Richard, that might be a bastard son of the King. However, since he was not acknowledged in the King's lifetime (reportedly he was at the eve of Bosworth and told to stay put should the King lose), it can never be known whether he actually was the King's son.
mainsqueeze1977 8 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 Don't feed the trolls.
EmzLuvzCatz 4 months ago
@RoyalSnowbird Where is this info coming from that he had a bastard son named Richard? The only two listed are John of Gloucester and Elizabeth. I see you corrected your own mistake on the dates of Edward, Prince of Wales. Oh dear.
lovelystrings 3 months ago
@lovelystrings
Have a look here at the "Richard III Society's Back to basics, #6" (please google it, links not working): Richard's bastard children are given as John, Katherine and, possibly Richard: "The only proven fact we have for this Richard is that in the Parish register of the Kentish parish of Eastwell there is a notice of the burial of 'Rychard Plantagenet' in 1550. The other details usually cited, that he was acknowledged by Richard on the eve of Bosworth ...
mainsqueeze1977 3 months ago
... and was discovered by Sir Thomas Moyle, (the owner of Eastwell), working as a mason on his estate and given a cottage by him, all first appear in print in 1735. There is no evidence that any of this is true, nor that it is untrue. The only other 'fact' we have, that Richard Plantagenet's tomb exists, is certainly not true. This tomb, still in the now ruined Eastwell church, dates from about 1480 and is probably that of Sir Walter Moyle and his wife."
mainsqueeze1977 3 months ago
@RoyalSnowbird For one thing her name was Lady Anne Neville; there was no Beauchamp in her name. Her son with Richard III's dates were 1473 – 9 April 1484. He died young. As for the Duke of Clarence, George, he only married Isabella. George and Isabella had a Richard of York but he died young as well. His only surviving children were Margaret, Countess of Salisbury and Edward, 17th Earl of Warwick. Your statement makes absolutely no sense at the end.. he married Anne Beauchamp Neville, huh?
lovelystrings 3 months ago
Her father, the Earl of Warwick lived in the 15th century NOT the 16th! BIG mistake here!
RoyalSnowbird 2 years ago
He is the 16th earl of warwick, meaning he was the 16th person to hold that title. I was not talking about centuries
animegirlUK 2 years ago 6
History says Anne was the eldest, and Isabella, the second. My research has found this was not so, which would explain why Clarence was trying to keep her hid. Also a Ricardian. For a long time
falswhite 2 years ago
Richard was a devoted and loving husband and dosen't deserve a fraction of the flack he's gotten then or now.
zenguy22 3 years ago 14
A bit trickier than it seems. For one thing, Anne could not be disinherited without doing the same to her sister, George's wife. And even so, Richard's marriage to Anne vastly increased his personal wealth.
Anne Neville is s cypher, even more mysterious than her husband, and people read things into her, projecting their own preconceptions--good and bad.
zahir13 3 years ago
The Tudor Dynasty was made up of a bunch of usurpers. They had NO right to the english throne. Shakespeare with his lies of Richard III, has spread these lies born out of the propaganda master, Thomas More. Richard III was the rightful king of England who loved Anne very dearly. That is the truth and England would of been much better off with the descendents of Richard III.I never, despite many visits to Westminister Abbey, have and never will, visit the tomb of the usurper, Henry VII.
noff27 3 years ago 11
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I do like Margaret and Mary Rose Tudor, Henry VIII's sisters. They were beautiful, brave and extraordinary women.
InnateNobility 3 years ago
@noff27 the only one who had a right claim to the english throne was catherine of aragon because of blood relation to the lancaster house through her mother. in my opinion queen isabella in a way was decieved for she thought to marry her daughter for an alliance but in reality the tudors needed stability and to be a believable dynasty and what better way than to marry lancaster descendant into the house of tudor to make its house more stable.
Tekirai 11 months ago
@noff27
I agree about this family of Welsh brigants but I must defend Shakespeare and even More. Shakespeare was not about telling history but about putting on a show and he based himself on the information he got. More is a bit more guilty but even was a child in 1485 and didn't know much better. Both men BTW suffered from Tudor rule, though More more than Shakespeare, whose father was a persecuted recusant.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago 2
@mainsqueeze1977 -Both did suffer from the propaganda machine in the Tudor period, agreed. But More had access to the truth and he twisted it to serve the Tudors. Shakespeare was just an author who couldn't care less about historical accuracy as long as his work was produced.
noff27 10 months ago
@noff27
No, More did not have "access to the truth" - how could he? He was a child in 1485 and wsa brought up in pro-Tudor circles. Sure, he can be blamed for clearly inventing so many details in his account (compare him to Polydore Vergil) but when he did he wasn't writing history either but a sort of moral tract describing the ultimate tyrant, using the badly reputed Richard for that. (And he might even had Henry VII in mind). BTW, he never published his "Richard III".
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@noff27
I did not mean, they suffered from Tudor propaganda but they suffered from the regime. More's father was persecuted by Henry VII, he himself disliked the man and had high hopes for his son but we now how that turned out. Shakespeare's own stance in religious matters is disputed but his father was heavily fined by Elizabeth, that "greatest of all monarchs", for refusing to attend Anglican church services.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@noff27
Yeah, and look what that usupring dynasty did to England, twisting it beyond recognition, dictacting to people's customs and consciences at whim. The worst dynasty in English history by far.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@noff27 yes love it!
kayrisha23 5 months ago
In order to marry Anne, Richard sacrificed much of her inheritance to his older brother George, who opposed their match. This sacrifice was not financially savvy, which suggests that he did marry her with honest intentions and not for her wealth.
Also after Barnet and Tewksbury she was legally entitled to nothing, being the daughter of a traitorous rebel. Richard marrying her saved her from a life of poverty.
Gee can you tell i'm Ricardian?
abrondarbit 3 years ago 4
nicely put!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with you all the way!
tiredoldbag 3 years ago
Since I posted that I went to visit england. I was in york looking for an internet cafe and I accidently found the church where Richard came to take Anne for his wife. It was pretty amazing.
abrondarbit 3 years ago
Anne and Richard had grown up together even though Richard was gaining a lot out of marrying her Its obvious he cared about her. He wept openly at her funeral and took great pains to find her when Clarence hid her away. And yes you are right he gave in to a lot of Clarence's demands in order to marry her.
Can you tell im also a Ricardian?
HayleyLFC85 2 years ago 2