AUTHOR’S NOTES:
Fascinated by the many stories and books written about the royal Tudors, barring one, Henry VII, I have often asked myself. “Why is so much written about these other Tudors and nothing but historical conjecture about the greatest Tudor of them all (the man that founded the dynasty)?”
When I set out to write a historical romantic novel about Henry VII, I was amazed at the divergence of opinions about the man. In my research, I came across so many contradictory accounts. Most of the accounts are mere speculation from an English perspective. In fact there is a virtual lack of properly documented history concerning Henry VII for the period 1471AD to 1485AD.
Why? I asked myself. After much deliberation on the matter, I decided to piece together what was actually known with what was feasibly and logically possible by applying “the reasonable man test.” In my deliberation, I discounted completely all conjecture and all accounts written by English historians and the Richard III societies, except for factual dates where these concur.
I have come to the conclusion that Henry VIII, together with his advisors, is to blame for the lack of information about his father. The reason is quite simple when you understand the politics of the day.
Henry VII (Harri Tudur) was a Welshman who ruled by conquest. All his life as king, his standard was the Cadwaladr Standard. By contrast Henry VIII was brought up in an English court with considerable influence of the House of York. His greatest claim to the throne was not by conquest but by his birthright through his mother, Elizabeth of York. He adopted as his standard, the Tudor rose. I believe it was he, and his advisors, who set about to destroy all his links to Wales. A good example of one of his anti Welsh acts was to incorporate Wales into England.
When Henry VIII broke away from Rome, he destroyed many Roman Catholic monasteries and cathedrals. One of the Abbeys he destroyed was the Abbey at Merevale. This church was far away from all the other Roman Catholic institutions. Why? I think the reason for destroying the church at Merevale (Atherstone) was to destroy records of the battle waged there between Richard III and his father Henry VII.
The destruction of all records of his father’s rise to power was so intense. Even today no one knows for certain where the battle took place. Henry VIII got away with the destruction of his Welsh roots because most people in Wales in those days were illiterate. The literate were more concerned with matters pertaining to Wales.
The Welsh turned against the Tudors when Wales was incorporated into England, unwittingly against their true champion, Harri Tudur, the man who had liberated them from English domination. This unfortunate legacy continues to this day.
With all the above in mind, given the paucity of sound information available, I wrote below what I regard is a more realistic historical record on which to base my novel.
Pen Y Bryn
Henry VII - The Great Warrior King of England and Wales
Not in the whole realm of British history are the words of Mark Anthony, taken from Shakespeare’s play on Julius Caesar more applicable than when applied to Henry VII.
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. So, let it be with Caesar.....Anthony continued (referring to Caesars slayers)........ So are they all, all honourable men.”
History has been so badly ‘smudged’ by various historians over the ensuing five centuries to render this great man, Henry VII, a pitiful legacy.
There are many myths and suppositions about the period 9th April 1483 (the death of Edward IV) to 22nd August 1485 (the so called Battle of Bosworth). It is my intention to establish a more realistic record based on logistical grounds and applying the ‘reasonable man’ test as applied by Roman Dutch Law.
THE REASONABLE MAN - A potential defendant will be negligent by falling below the standards of the ordinary reasonable person in his/her situation, i.e. by doing something which the reasonable man would not do or failing to do something which the reasonable man would do.
The truth concerning Henry VII has been ‘smudged’, possibly for personal or political expediency. Notwithstanding absolutely no eyewitness accounts of the Battle of Bosworth, the writers made up their own versions of events. Most are derogatory of Henry VII while heaping praise on Richard III. Even Polydore Vigil’s Anglica Historica, written some twenty-seven years after Bosworth, was not conclusive. It was hearsay at best. He was an Italian monk, never in the employ of Henry VII as most writers advocate.
Well what are the probable facts? Moreover, what are the probable fallacies? You be the judge.
First of all Henry VII was born in Pembroke Castle of noble Welsh ancestry. He was a descendant of the famous Welsh warrior family that included Rhys ap Gruffydd, Owain Glyndwr, and the famous warriors; the Tudurs of Anglesey. By quirk of fate, he was also a descendant of Edward III of England and Charles VI of France. He was primarily Welsh and a fierce Welsh nationalist. The English/Norman barons were hard taskmasters of the Welsh peasants. Henry VII had great empathy for these peasants. One of his lasting, and undeniable, legacies is that he freed them from their affliction.
His primary desire was to be Prince of Wales and uplift his people. However, his mother Margaret Beaufort (herself an heir to the throne of England) had other ideas. She always saw him as being King of England. In his informative years, his uncle Jasper Tudor nurtured and influenced him in all manner of warfare. Jasper’s influence prepared him in life for the role of both warrior and king.
In my research I was fascinated by the fact that everyone Henry came into contact with liked and supported him (such as Jasper Tudor, Francis II of Brittany, Anne of France, Rhys ap Gruffydd, George Talbot & John Savage, to name a few). He was obviously a man of distinction who impressed with whomsoever he came into contact. I may add that Philippe de Commynes in his Mémoires reflects favourably about Henry in two separate statements.
If you are interested in medieval history, reading the Mémoires de Philippe de Commynes offers much in the way of information about the life and times. The Mémoires provide a largely unbiased view of the period, circa 1450AD to 1500AD.
I particularly enjoyed de Commynes’s outburst against Richard III and his reference to Henry VII.
“This King Richard himself reigned not long, for God on a sudden raised him up an enemy, without power, without money, without right, (according to my information), and without reputation but what his person and deportment excited; for he had suffered much, being in distress all the days of his life."
Good reading if you are into history.
He did mention that Henry's troops were from Normandy, but you have to put it into perspective. The people of Normandy were, according to the French, low life and inferior. The Norman's spoke a different language as did the Bretons. When Henry made a hasty retreat from Brittany, his route to Paris was through Normandy. That is why he mistook the Welsh troops for Normans. By mentioning the troops as from Normandy he was emphasizing God's punishment on the evil Richard III.
In another, more sober, reflection of his memoirs about Henry VII, de Commynes uses this description of Henry. “The English, who were powerful and rich, and governed by a wise, graceful, ‘and valiant Prince, Henry,’ who had several sage and brave men under him, and very good commanders, as the Earl of Salisbury, Talbot, and others I pass by, etc.”
It is to be noted that de Commynes describes Henry VII as valiant Prince Henry. Compare that to the Standard English history books saying that Henry was a coward, simply because he was Welsh. Born and brought up in Wales. It is enough to make my hair stand on end.
As a matter of interest, The Earl of Salisbury was a misnomer. He was referring to Jasper Tudor, Henry VII's uncle. There was some confusion with the title of Earl of Salisbury (Henry had attainted the Earl in 1485AD after the battle and intended to confer this title and lands on Jasper). Henry eventually executed the holder of the title in 1499AD. Jasper was made Duke of Bedford instead. A Duke is a much more regal title and higher in status than that of Earl.
Over the years, whilst in exile, he was enticed by many lucrative marriage proposals by Edward IV and his mother. He refused all these offers. This, in my opinion, proves that he was his own man, not someone to be taken lightly.
He was fortunate to have had Jasper Tudor as his uncle. Jasper was probably the only loyal person of note in the Wars of the Roses. Jasper was loyal to his half brother Henry VI. Had Henry VI’s wife, Margaret of Anjou, entrusted him with the leadership of the army that she led on behalf of her husband and son, history may have been very different.
Jasper escaped to Brittany, after Edward IV deposed his half brother following the defeat of the Lancastrians at Battle of Tewkesbury, but not before inflicting a humiliating defeat on the House of York in a Battle at Chepstow. With less than five hundred troops under his command he defeated Edward IV’s senior lieutenant, Lord Vaughan, who had over three thousand five hundred men. After capturing Lord Vaughan, Jasper beheaded him in revenge for Lord Vaughan having beheaded his father after the battle of Mortimers Cross.
Being the loyal man he was, notwithstanding having a claim to the throne in his own right, he escaped to Brittany with young Henry, to protect him from certain death at the hands of the Edward IV. Henry was 14 years old at the time.
He left behind some faithful followers in command of his small army. He charged them with building up support for his nephew for a future invasion of Wales and England. This invasion was planned for a future time when Henry was old enough to lead the army. Jasper, for some unknown reason, did not pursue the throne in his own right even though he was also a Lancastrian heir.
Breton, a form of Welsh, was the language spoken in Brittany in those days. So Jasper and young Henry felt very much at home. Francis II, Duke of Brittany, took a liking to young Henry and regarded him as a son. Providing the finance, he allowed Jasper to enlist men for an army. He took great interest in training Henry for a future role as King of England and Wales.
Francis was so impressed with young Henry that he conferred on him his land, title and interest in the Honour of Richmond. The Honour of Richmond was a vast tract of land in Yorkshire that Francis had inherited from Henry II, King of England. Francis’ claim to the Honour of Richmond was bona fide as it was passed down to him. He was a direct descendant of Henry II, King of England. This claim was authentic but not recognised by successive English Monarchs.
When the time came for Henry to lead the invasion, there was a political upheaval in Brittany led by the treachery of Pierre Landois, the Duke’s Prime Minister. Landois briefly held power in Brittany and, unbeknown to Francis, tried to sell Henry into the hands of Richard III who had pledged support for his rebellion against Francis. Jasper learned of the plot and rescued Henry as he was about to be put on a ship bound for England.
Henry then fled to France with Jasper. His troops followed some time later after having found favour with Anne of France, who was the Regent of Charles VIII, King of France. A number of Lancastrian dissidents joined Henry in France, as they were disillusioned with or attainted by Richard III. Richard III had, by this time, super-ceded his brother Edward IV to the throne.
Contrary to popular belief, Henry never entered into any alliance with the Duke of Buckingham who rebelled against Richard III in 1483AD. Henry was an astute, intelligent man who would have known that the Duke of Buckingham had possibly a greater claim to the throne (reasonable man test). Therefore, any alliance with him would have been out of the question. Henry may have flirted with the idea of the alliance to encourage Buckingham into a war with Richard III, in order to weaken both of them.
Anne of France agreed to support Henry financially and gave him the use of a number of ships to ferry his troops across to Wales. By this time, Henry’s army had swollen to more than two thousand men. They were mostly highly skilled Welsh mercenaries called to arms from various armies in Europe. The rest consisted of a few Bretons and some dissident Lancastrian and Yorkist nobles.
Henry arrived in Dale, near Milford Haven, in South West Wales on 7th August 1485 unsure of any local support. He first encountered Rhys ap Thomas who met him with two thousand troops of his own. Richard III had appointed Rhys to protect South Wales against the possibility of an invasion by Henry. Rhys met Henry just after he had disembarked at Dale and realised that the army led by Henry was professional and disciplined (reasonable man test). It was not some ‘tin pot’ army as most writers imply (comprised of French mercenaries and convicts). Henry’s army was one of substance and obvious training. Henry’s mother had raised considerable funds to lure the Welsh mercenaries from various armies in Europe where they were in demand, because of their legendary ability with the longbow. Henry had used the same strategy as Owain Glyndwr, who eighty years earlier, had called on the Welsh mercenaries to come back to Wales to support him.
Rhys decided to throw in his lot with Henry despite an oath he had sworn to Richard. Legend has it that the oath was to the effect ‘only over his belly would he allow Henry to pass by. He eased his conscience by allowing Henry to ride over a bridge in Pembrokeshire while he lay on his back underneath the bridge, thus absolving himself of the Oath to Richard.’ Whether or not this legend is true no one will ever know, but it is probably not. Reference; Griffith, Ralph A. Sir Rhys Ap Thomas and His Family: A Study in the Wars of the Roses - University of Wales Press.
The two armies then proceeded to march up through Wales. Henry followed the route up the coast to Aberystwyth while Rhys followed a more central route up the Afon Tywi Valley. They met up again at Welshpool and marched together to Shrewsbury. The Mayor of Shrewsbury was a relative of Henry and allowed him free passage through the city (albeit after a show of strength). During his march through Wales, one thousand five hundred Welshmen (mainly the remnant of Jaspers small army) and George Talbot with five hundred men joined them. At Shrewsbury John Savage of Chester joined with another five hundred Welsh troops. Henry, now with some seven thousand troops under his command, marched on towards London.
At the time, Richard had stationed himself in the centre of England at Nottingham, as he was unsure as to where Henry would invade. He had amassed some fourteen thousand troops. He was taken by surprise, only knowing that Henry had landed when he was already in Shrewsbury.
Richard was probably thinking that his castles along the route would hold up Henry’s progress. Henry was much smarter than that. Knowing and deciding that in the long run castles and land were difficult to defend. His philosophy destroyed the value of castles as a place of strength and power.
Henry had recruited all the forces he could during his rapid march through Wales. He stopped briefly outside the castles along the way giving the Lord of the castle an ultimatum. You either supply me with troops or, after I have defeated Richard, I will have you attainted and declared a traitor. This had the desired effect.
Once Henry had reached Shrewsbury the next area where he could expect support would be London. The quickest route from Shrewsbury to London was via Watling Street heading east to Mancetter then from Mancetter heading south to London. From the time they departed from Shrewsbury, Thomas Stanley tracked Henry, but with only two thousand troops Stanley knew he would be no match for Henry. So he waited for Richard to engage him first.
When Richard had received word that Henry had crossed into England from Wales at Shrewsbury, he hastily called for the Duke of Northumberland and the Duke of Norfolk to bolster his forces. He left Nottingham a few days later with his fourteen thousand troops. Also arrayed against Henry was Thomas’ brother, William Stanley with five hundred men. He was monitoring Henry’s progress and, like his brother, was waiting for Richard to arrive.
The day before the battle, Henry, Jasper, Rhys, John de Vere and a few of the captains surveyed the possible battleground. They had seen Richard take up his position on the hill above Mancetter (the battle did not take place at Bosworth). Henry’s troops marched as far to the south and east of Richard’s position. Henry eventually chose a place near the bottom of the hill where there was a marsh on his right hand. This annulled the threat posed by Thomas Stanley who had tracked Henry for about three days prior to the battle. George Talbot in the meantime had the job of containing William Stanley to Watling Street thereby isolating him from Richard’s position.
The majority of the Stanley brothers forces were Welsh, Richard would have been naive to think that they would support him against a man marching under the Welsh Cadwaladr Standard.
I don’t think Richard was naive. He was a great army general. His major problem was that he was panicked into engaging Henry at Mancetter, in short notice, having only known of Henry's invasion when he had already reached Shrewsbury. Richard therefore only had a maximum of five days to prepare for the battle. He had to prevent Henry getting to London where he would have had additional Lancastrian support. In order to prevent Henry from reaching London, Richard closed the bridge over the River Anker and took up his position on Merevale Hill overlooking the River. He had gathered his troops in a great hurry and was not properly prepared for the battle.
In taking up his position in such haste he had not surveyed his chosen site and hadn’t realised that there was a large marsh to the left of his forces. The marsh kept the Duke of Northumberland and Thomas Stanley out of the battle. Richard’s troops, although much greater in number, were mainly conscripts. As pointed out earlier, Henry’s troops were mainly professional soldiers.
Henry’s reason for preferring the lower ground was for his longbow men to pick off Richard’s troops as they advanced down towards him. Richard, seeing the much smaller army, duly obliged. He launched his overwhelming numbers down the hill charging Henry’s position. Richard was in the thick of the fighting believing that his army would soon overwhelm Henry’s much smaller army. The charge by Richard’s men was disastrous. Henry’s longbow men cut many of them down. By the time they had engaged Henry’s troops in hand to hand combat, they were in disarray and lacking leadership in their ranks.
Henry’s troops being highly skilled and trained, adopted a Roman legion pincer movement that totally confused Richard’s part time troops. They were under orders not to move more than ten paces from their starting point unless the Standards were moved. Only then were they to move accordingly.
Richard, seeing that the battle was against him made a surge to get to Henry but at the last minute he lost his nerve. He tried to escape to join with Lord Stanley, whose troops were prevented from engaging Henry in the battle because of the marsh. While he was fleeing the battle, his horse became bogged down in the marsh and he was slain by William Gardynyr, a warrior in the army of Rhys AP Thomas.
As Richard was now dead, Thomas and William Stanley knew they were in trouble with Henry for not supporting him in the battle. They sent their Welsh troops to pursue the remnant of Richard’s army, killing indiscriminately in a desperate attempt to find favour with Henry.
Thomas’ troops found Richard’s crown in the hands of William Gardynyr and brought it to Henry. He then sheepishly placed it on Henry’s head. Henry knighted William Gardynyr and Rhys ap Thomas on the battlefield as well as a number of his captains. Neither William nor Thomas Stanley were knighted on the battle field.
The Stanley brothers slaughtered thousands of Richard’s troops as they were retreating from the battle. This is the reason why so many troops were buried in the church cemetery at Daddlington.
Henry was anxious to take advantage of his supremacy on the battlefield and made haste to reach London with his troops. He left the cleaning up operations to the Stanley brothers who were keen to make amends for remaining on the sideline during the battle. Henry regarded them disdainfully but took no revenge on Thomas for his mother’s sake as she was married to him. Thomas Stanley had an ulterior motive for wanting Henry to be defeated. Henry’s mother had been attainted by Richard, and Thomas was gifted all her considerable wealth. With Henry out of the way, he would have continued to own those assets. Henry’s mother was reputed to be one of the wealthiest people in England and Wales, before her wealth was gifted by Richard III to Thomas Stanley.
Thomas continued his cowardly behaviour by taking the body of Richard slung over a horse to Leicester. He had him hung up for three days in full view of the public. He was hoping that this would endear him to Henry. This act had the opposite effect on Henry who was appalled over the treatment of a King of England. One of Henry’s first acts after he was confirmed king was to provide money for a dignified burial and a tomb for Richard. King Richard’s Grave in Leicester by David Baldwin.
It is significant that Henry arrived in London on the 7th September 1485AD only 14 days after the Battle of Mancetter (Bosworth). About one hundred of Henry’s troops were killed in the battle so he must have spent a few days after the battle at Mancetter to bury the dead. This means that he would have had to travel a distance of at least 12 miles a day with many walking wounded and dwindling supplies. He therefore had neither the time nor the desire to go to Leicester to desecrate Richard’s body. He would have had the more important matters of the surrender of the barons in London on his mind. Thomas had every reason to go to Leicester because his son was held hostage there by Richard, to ensure his loyalty.
Well, one may ask, why is history recorded so differently? Why is there no clear account of the circumstances surrounding the battle? Why is there no information about the events leading up to the battle on the 22nd August 1485?
There are a few reasons. - As they say, ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’.
1) Wales defeated England. A fact never accepted by the English, even to this day. English historians have clutched at all sorts of straws to explain away this defeat. This has given rise to the worldwide Richard III society, adding heaps of glory on to Richard and scorn on Henry to the extent of being crass. The Richard III Society even have a web page dedicated to changing the face of Henry to make him look ugly. How infantile can they get?
2) The English historians have conjured up all sorts of excuses and conspiracies against Richard. The writers claimed that timely intervention made by the Stanley brothers gave Henry the victory over Richard. Henry had William Stanley executed 11 years later and did not knight Thomas or William on the battlefield. So this is highly improbable (reasonable man test).
Henry did not execute Thomas on the battlefield because he was married to his mother. Had he have done so his mother would have been widowed to a traitor. Favours subsequently extended to Thomas by Henry, was only to enhance the status of his mother. It is to be noted that Henry reversed the attaintment of his mother and curtailed the marital power of Thomas over her estates, thereby enabling his mother to run her own financial affairs. This act was a severe rebuke to Thomas and was the equivalent of a virtual divorce. Henry’s mother took ‘chastity vows’ further isolating Thomas. The measures taken against Thomas had the effect of not allowing him to remarry.
3) Rhys ap Thomas besides being knighted on the battlefield was given the governorship of Wales and was second only to Henry in Wales. Because of his gallantry in personally slaying Richard, Jasper Tudor’s illegitimate daughter married William Gardynyr a commoner. As mentioned earlier, Henry had knighted William Gardynyr on the battlefield.
4) Henry VII appointed Welsh nobles, and Lancastrians who assisted him, to the top positions in his realm.
5) Henry VII gave the Welsh people equal rights with the English. The power of the English/Norman barons in Wales was broken for good. The Welsh were allowed to purchase land in both England and Wales and were free to trade without restriction.
6) The Welsh opinion turned against the Tudors, because Henry VIII incorporated Wales into England and only paid lip service to the Welsh. Henry’s wife brought up Henry VIII in an English court. So Henry VIII did not have the same love for Wales that his father had.
Subsequent Tudor sovereigns eroded many of the privileges enjoyed by the Welsh people to the extent that the greatness of Henry VII was lost on the people of Wales. Henry VII made it quite clear that he ruled by conquest. His standard during his rule was the Cadwaladr Standard, right up to his death in 1509AD.
Henry VIII’s claim to the throne was greater through his mother. He therefore played down his Welsh links and enhanced his Yorkist claim to the throne. I firmly believe that it was he who destroyed most of the information about the assent of his father to the throne. I make this surprising statement, based admittedly on flimsy reasons. Henry VIII destroyed the church at Merevale (Mancetter and Atherstone), where I suspect much of the records of the battle would have been located. He did a very good job of destroying the records of the battle. Even today no one knows where the battle took place.
Purely on logistic grounds, I believe that the battle took place at Mancetter and not at Bosworth. I make this observation purely in the probability that Henry was travelling down the old Roman road (Watling Street). He was heading for London where he was guaranteed to have additional support. Richard III had to stop him getting to London. So his best bet was to block Henry’s route to London at the bridge over the River Anker.
7) The English writers have overplayed Richard III’s bravery to lend credence to conspiracy theories. Mainly to cover up the truth that Wales conquered England with a much smaller but very well trained and organised army. There were absolutely no eyewitnesses to say Richard was so brave or that Henry was a coward.
8) The historians have portrayed Henry as a coward. Would a coward arrive in Wales with only two thousand men to take on the might of England? On the contrary, he must have been very courageous see extract from the Memoirs of Philippe de Commynes above addressing Henry as the "valiant Prince Henry.".
9) The writers say that Henry arrived in South Wales with two thousand French mercenaries and convicts. They site Philippe de Commynes as authority – I’ve read de Commynes memoirs. All he says about Henry’s army was that they were unruly Normans (see explanation above). I can imagine Welsh mercenaries being unruly – can’t you? Many of the historians have incorrectly, and indeed incestuously, quoted each other as sources for the assumption that Henry's troops were French mercenaries and convicts.
As aforementioned the main thrust of de Commynes’ comment on this matter was that the wicked Richard received his just punishment from a man that had very little going for him. I quote, “This King Richard himself reigned not long, for God on a sudden raised him up an enemy, without power, without money, without right, (according to my information), and without reputation but what his person and deportment excited; for he had suffered much, being in distress all the days of his life, etc.” It is easy to see from these words of de Commynes that the reference to the unruly men that landed in Wales with Henry was a play on words to emphasize that Richard’s fate was sealed by God for his wickedness. It should, therefore, not be taken as a slur on Henry’s troops.
In another, more sober, reflection of his memoirs about Henry, de Commynes uses this description of Henry. “The English, who were powerful and rich, and governed by a wise, graceful, and valiant Prince, Henry, who had several sage and brave men under him, and very good commanders, as the Earl of Salisbury, Talbot, and others I pass by, etc.”
Another thing I find difficult to believe. Would a proven warrior chief like Rhys ap Thomas would have thrown his hand in with a bunch of French mercenaries and convicts? By so doing, making himself subjected to the control of their leader. I also find it amazing that the English historians are more comfortable with the thought of being conquered by two thousand French mercenaries and convicts, rather than by a well-drilled and ably led Welsh Army.
Henry’s mother had campaigned vigorously to ensure that Henry had the finance to enlist a professional army. It is more likely that the mercenaries were Welsh warriors who plied their trade in various armies in Europe. Rallied to arms in the same way they did for Owain Glyndwr some 80 years earlier. Henry, being an astute man, would have followed the same course of action as Owain Glyndwr.
10) The writers say Henry hugged the coastline with his ships close by so that he could make an escape if things went against him. How wrong can they be? Henry used the ships for logistical support enabling him to move his army much faster. In 15 days, his army covered a phenomenal 240 miles from Dale to Mancetter (Bosworth) - mileage probably greater as there were no motor ways in those days. An army marching 16 miles a day was unheard of in those times.
11) Most historians acknowledge that Henry VII was very prudent and astute as the King of England. Do you not think that he set up his campaign leading up to the battle of Mancetter (Bosworth) with the same degree of prudence and astuteness (reasonable man test)?
12) The favourite ploy of all the historians is to say that Polydore Vigil was in the employ of Henry VII that is why he made favourable comments about Henry. Polydore Virgil was only 14 years old in 1485AD the year of the Battle of Bosworth. He only came to England in 1501AD some 16 years after the Battle of Bosworth.
Virgil wrote ‘Anglica Historica’ in 1512AD three years after the death of Henry VII (during the reign of Henry VIII). In Anglica Historica, there is a small section devoted to Henry VII. If I had been Henry VII, I would have sacked him for not expanding more on my virtues. Virgil wrote Anglica Historica 27 years after the Battle of Bosworth. The small insignificant reference to the Battle of Bosworth was hearsay (at best).
13) The historians and the Richard III Society say that Henry had a clandestine meeting with Thomas Stanley at Stafford on his way to Bosworth. Henry was following Watling Street from Shrewsbury to London. Stafford is 12 miles north of this road. This would have taken him over a day’s journey away from his troops (a total of 24 miles there and back – probably more as his men were marching 16 miles a day). To meet a man who was ‘undecided’ and who had been gifted his mother’s wealth. He was also a very senior man in Richard’s hierarchy. When you analyse all the logistics, you realise how wrong is this assumption. I certainly would not have put my life in the hands of someone with Thomas Stanley’s back ground – would you (Reasonable man test)?
14) In those days besides having an east west divide, there was also a north south divide. Henry was assured of considerable support down south. As mentioned previously Richard had to stop him getting to London, so he closed off the bridge over the River Anker at Mancetter. Reparations were paid to Atherstone and Merevale by the crown for damages caused where the ‘two armies’ met (official records prove this fact).
15) Trying to make out that Richard was such a well loved person in York, the Richard III Society make this ridiculous statement.
John Spooner rode into the city of York the day after the battle. The Mayor and Alderman of York assembled in the council chamber and recorded "it was recorded by John Spooner that King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us, was piteously slane and murdered to the grete heaviness of this citie."
York is 130 miles from Bosworth or 140 miles from Mancetter. How did John Spooner get there the ‘day after the battle’? He could only have done so if he was riding on the back of Pegasus or ‘Black Bess’ (the only other possibility was email or Skype!).
------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is that Henry VII was a great warrior and the greatest King of England and Wales and was the only one of his time that could claim the throne of England and Wales. He united England and Wales and laid the grounds for incorporating Scotland. He laid the foundation that made Britain great and should have gone down in history as Henry the great of England and Wales. He achieved much more than any other Prince of Wales including Llewelyn the great of Wales and Owain Glyndwr, he also achieved more than any other King of England because no other king of England before him ever achieved total dominance in Wales.
So I leave off where I started with the quote from Shakespeare – ‘The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar’
‘So let it be with Henry VII?’ You be the judge; are not the writers of history ‘honourable’ men?
Pen-Y-Bryn, (Author)
------------------------------------------
HENRY VII AMAZING DASH TO GLORY
Leaving little or no time for clandestine meetings
7 miles north of Hwlffordd (Haverfordwest 7th August), Wallis (8th August), Aberteifi (Cardigan 9th August) Aberarth (Aberarth 10th August) Aberystwyth (11th August), Machynlleth (on 12th August) , Talerddig (13th August), Y Drenewydd (Newtown 14th August), Y Trallwng (2 miles north of Welshpool just across the bridge over the Afon Hafren- Severn River (15th August), Shrewsbury, (16th August) Wroxeter (17th August), Red Hill, Staffs (18th August) Water Eaton, Staffs 19th August), Wall, Staffs (20th August), Mancetter/Merevale (21st August).
Submit your comments to: Kingofprinces@tudor.vc
------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM
Examples of pathetic anti Henry VII - Pro Richard III literature
You can read the full account of the English version of history by this author:
English History
Just a few notes that prove the author and the article are lacking in credibility.
The bravery of Richard III called into question - (bearing in mind that there were no eyewitness accounts of the battle).
[quote] Richard's scouts told him that Henry, too, remained outside the fighting, observing the battle with a small group of supporters. By identifying Henry's standard, Richard determined his exact position. Then he undertook a most courageous and incredible feat - he spurred his horse to ride directly at Henry, the pretender to his throne. He knew that if Henry was slain - before Stanley intervention - the battle would end. On his horse, at full gallop, he slay a great number of those around Henry (notably his standard bearer, William Brandon, and that respected soldier, the 'giant' John Cheyne.) Henry, of course, was innocent of real experience in battle but he did not run - though he also kept a horse nearby in case the battle was lost. Still, the tide would have turned against Henry except.... the Stanleys finally entered the battle, on the Tudor side! {NB. John Cheyne died in 1492AD seven years after thye battle}.
It cannot be emphasized enough that Richard III died valiantly in battle. Every later chronicler asserted his bravery and skill. One wrote that, after Stanley's men swarmed around him, Richard fought 'manfully in the thickest press of his enemies.' According to Polydore Vergil, 'that day he would make end either of war or life'; he would 'die like a king or win victory in this field.' He was wounded several times but refused the advice of his few companions to flee. He also refused the offer of a horse. His heroism was evident to all. In the end, he could not prevail. His crown was knocked from his head; his head was struck so many times that the helmet was beaten into the skull; even after his death, his body continued to be beaten. [/quote]
There are a number of conflicting and ludicrous statements in this quote, to highlight just three:
i) “On his horse, at full gallop” and later, “He also refused the offer of a horse.”
ii) “Richard's scouts told him that Henry, too, remained outside the fighting, observing the battle with a small group of supporters.” Contrast with, “Richard fought 'manfully in the thickest press of his enemies.'” How could he be in the thickest press of his enemies if Henry remained outside of the fighting with a small group of supporters? “he slay a great number of those around Henry.”
iii) “Henry, of course, was innocent of real experience in battle but he did not run - though he also kept a horse nearby in case the battle was lost.” Surely as the commander, he would have been on a horse?
The Welsh account on the death of Richard simply says, “Richard’s horse was trapped in the marsh where he was slain by one of Rhys Thomas’ men, a commoner named William Gardynyr.”
Henry VII knighted William Gardynyr on the battlefield and Jasper Tudor gave his illegitimate daughter to him in marriage. I know which version I believe.
In the same article, the ‘honourable’ author wrote this:
[quote] Henry's great enterprise was about to begin. On 1 August 1485, Henry and his followers left Honfleur and sailed down the Seine into the Channel. On 7 August, they sailed into Milford Sound near sunset. They actually landed at Mill Bay, inside the Sound. This was the land of Pembrokeshire where Henry had been imprisoned as a young man. Upon landing, Henry knelt down and whispered, 'Judge me, Lord, and fight my cause.' He kissed the English soil, crossed himself, and told his men to follow him - in the name of God and St George. It was no coincidence that he landed in Wales, his father's native land; it was there that he hoped to gain crucial support for his cause. [/quote]
In the first place he was on Welsh soil not English soil and I doubt very much that he would have mentioned St George, Henry VII had never ever in his life crossed over the border into England, he was to do so for the first time on his way to Mancetter (Bosworth).
In another place of the same article, the author makes this ridiculous subjective statement:
[quote] On a personal note....
I do want to stress that Henry Tudor did not participate in the fighting - and, in fact, he kept a horse nearby so he could flee if the battle was lost. In other words, he planned to 'turn tail and run', as the cliché goes.
It might seem odd that a king who supposedly won hiscrown in battle was actually quite cowardly on the battlefield, and didn't participate - but it's the truth.
Richard III only lost because Lord Stanley disgracefully betrayed his king. And he did so after Richard had already forgiven him numerous offenses (many bordering on treason), and had treated him kindly. Henry may have claimed a crown that day, but he claimed no glory. [/quote]
How the author can make such the statement “but it's the truth.” Beggars’ belief and brings the article and reputation of the author into question. More especially as earlier the author made this statement, “No one who actually fought at the battle recorded the battle;”
Another statement beggars belief “I do want to stress that Henry Tudor did not participate in the fighting - and, in fact, he kept a horse nearby so he could flee if the battle was lost.”
As a commander on the battlefield he would have been on his horse so why would he need another horse close by to ‘flee’ on?
I make this statement without fear of been proved wrong:–
“This ‘honourable’ English historian's account of the Battle of Bosworth and events leading up to the Battle is lacking in credibility.”
------------------------------------------
The Richard III emblem is a Wild Boar so :-)
for more examples of 'hogwash' history you can visit the following Richard III web sites:
(1)http://www.silverboar.org/ (2)http://www.richard111.com (3)http://www.richardiii.net (4)http://www.richardiiiworcs.co.uk/ (5)http://www.r3.org/ (6)http://www.richard3nz.org/ (7)http://www.richardiiigloucester.co.uk/ (8)http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/ (9)http://www.richardiii-nsw.org.au/
