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 there 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, all of them 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 try to piece together what was actually known with what was feasibly possible (by applying the reasonable man test); and what was logistically possible. In my deliberation I discounted completely all conjecture and all accounts written by English historians and the Richard III societies, except 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 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 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 that 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 and, 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 below 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 ‘honourable’ historians over the ensuing five centuries to render this great man Henry VII an impotent legacy.
There are many myths about the period 9th April 1483 (the death of Edward IV) to 22nd August 1485 (the Battle of Bosworth). It is my intention to destroy these myths and establish a more realistic record based on logistic grounds and applying the ‘reasonable man’ test as applied by Roman Dutch Law. [quote] 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.[/quote]
The historians have twisted the truth concerning Henry VII for personal and political expediency. Notwithstanding absolutely no eyewitness accounts of the Battle of Bosworth, English writers give their own accounts and most are derogatory of Henry VII and heap praise on Richard III. Even Vigil’s account some twenty-seven years after Bosworth was not conclusive and was hearsay at best. He was an Italian monk and was never in the employ of Henry VII as most English historians 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 Tudur’s 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 and one of his lasting 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 as, she always saw him as being King of England. In the years, he was growing up 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 (such as Jasper Tudor, Francis II, Anne of France and Rhys ap Gruffydd to name a few) liked and supported him. He was obviously a man of distinction who impressed with whomsoever he came into contact.
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, which to my opinion, proves that he was his own man and not someone to be taken lightly.
He was fortunate to have had Jasper Tudor as his uncle who 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 she led on behalf of her husband and son, history may have been very different. He escaped to Brittany after Edward IV deposed his half brother Henry VI after the Battle of Tewkesbury. Being the loyal man he was, notwithstanding having a claim to the throne in his own right, he escaped to Brittany with young Henry, who was 14 years old at the time, to protect him from certain death at the hands of the House of York.
He left behind him some faithful followers in charge of his small army and charged them with building up support for his nephew for a future invasion of Wales and England. This invasion was planned for 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.
Brittany in those days spoke Breton, a form of Welsh, 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. He allowed Jasper to enlist men for an army and 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 he had inherited from Henry II of France (Francis’ claim to the Honour of Richmond was bona fide as it was passed down to him through a direct line from Henry II king of England but this claim was not recognised by successive British 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 who 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 Richard III, who 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. 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 England. 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, while the rest consisted of a few Breton, French and some dissident Lancastrian and Yorkist nobles.
Henry arrived in Dale, near Milford Haven, in South West Wales on 7th August 1485, not sure 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. It was not some ‘tin pot’ army as most writers imply (comprised of French mercenaries and convicts) but 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 the Mullock Bridge, Dale 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.
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 Newtown 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 their march through Wales, five hundred Welshmen (mainly the remnant of Jaspers small army led by George Talbot) joined them. At Shrewsbury John Savage of Chester joined him 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 at Nottingham, in the centre of the UK, as he was unsure as to where Henry would invade and had amassed some fourteen thousand troops. He was taken by surprise at Henry reaching Shrewsbury so quickly, probably thinking that his castles along the route would hold up his progress. Henry was much smarter than that knowing and deciding that in the long run castles and land were difficult to defend. His philosophy virtually destroyed the value of castles as a place of strength and power.
From the time they departed from Shrewsbury, Thomas Stanley tracked Henry waiting to attack him, but with only two thousand troops 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 left Nottingham 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 after seeing Richard take up his position on the hill above Mancetter (the battle did not take place at Bosworth). They chose a place near the bottom of the hill where there was a marsh on their right hand in order to annul the threat posed by Thomas Stanley who had maintained a route on the right hand of Henry for about 5 days prior to the battle. George Talbot in the meantime had the job of containing William Stanley by isolating him from Richard’s position.
The majority of the Stanley brothers forces were Welsh, Richard would have been either stupid or dumb to think that they would support him against a man marching under the Welsh Cadwaladr Standard.
I don’t think Richard was either, 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. 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.
The 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 and 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, so by the time they had engaged Henry’s troops, 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 troops. They were under orders not to move more than ten paces from their starting point unless the Standards were moved and 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 lost his nerve and tried to escape to join with the Duke of Northumberland whose troops were prevented from engaging Henry in the battle because of the marsh. While he was fleeing the battle, his horse got 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 after the remnant of Richard’s army, killing indiscriminately and desperately trying 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.
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 impotent Stanley brothers. Henry regarded them disdainfully but took no revenge on him for his mother’s sake as she was married to Thomas Stanley. Thomas Stanley had an ulterior motive for wanting Henry to be defeated. Henry’s mother was attainted by Richard and Thomas was gifted all her considerable assets. 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 and 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 (this is in fact an official record).
What is significant is that Henry arrived in London on the 7th September 1485AD only 14 days after the Battle of Mancetter (Bosworth). He must have spent a few days after the battle at Mancetter to bury the dead etc. This means that he would have had to travel a distance of at least 9 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 more important matters on his mind (the surrender of the barons in London). Thomas had every reason to go to Leicester, as it was there his son was held hostage 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 and the events leading up to it 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, giving rise to the Worldwide Richard III society adding heaps of glory on to Richard and scorn on Henry to the extent of being crass. They even have a web page dedicated to changing the face of Henry to make him look ugly. How infantile can they get?
2) The ‘honourable’ 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 never knighted Thomas or William on the battlefield, so this is highly improbable. Henry did not execute Thomas on the battlefield because he was married to his mother. 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 run her own financial affairs. This act was a severe rebuke to him and was the equivalent of a virtual divorce. Henry’s mother took ‘chastity vows’ further isolating Thomas, and having 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. William Gardynyr, a commoner, married Jasper Tudor’s illegitimate daughter because of his gallantry in personally slaying Richard. Henry also knighted William Gardynyr on the battlefield.
4) Henry VII appointed Welsh nobles to most of the top positions in his realm.
5) Henry VII gave the Welsh people equal rights with the English, and the power of the English/Norman barons in Wales was broken for good.
6) The Welsh opinion turned against the Tudor’s, 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 so he 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 admitedly 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 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 ‘honourable’ English writers have overplayed Richard III’s bravery to lend credence to their 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. (see at the bottom of this article an English historians account of Richard’s bravery, bear in mind no record of the battle exists – I’ve included it for laughs and to emphasize my point that English historians were grossly biased (and are lacking in credibility).
8) The ‘honourable’ 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.
9) The honourable 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, I can imagine Welsh mercenaries being unruly – can’t you). The historians have incestuously quoted each other as sources for their assumptions. I find it difficult to believe that a proven warrior chief like Rhys ap Thomas would have thrown his hand in with a bunch of French mercenaries and convicts and be subjected to the control of their leader. I also find it amazing that the English 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 that 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?
12) The favourite ploy of all the English 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 Historia’ in 1512AD three years after the death of Henry VII (during the reign of Henry VIII). In Anglica Historia, there is a small section devoted to Henry VII and, if I had been Henry VII, I would have sacked him for not expanding more on my virtues. Virgil wrote Anglica Historia 27 years after the Battle of Bosworth and the small insignificant reference to the Battle of Bosworth was hearsay (at best).
13) The honourable 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 the Old Roman Road 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 (total of 24 miles - while his men were marching 16 miles a day) to meet a man who was ‘undecided’ and who controlled all his mothers wealth and who was a very senior man in Richard’s hierarchy. When you analyse all the logistics, you realise how wrong are these assumptions that are made by Richard III Society and English historians. 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 had a lot of 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. [quote] 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."[/quote] 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 English 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:–
“Every ‘honourable’ English historians 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/
