ferval wrote:

I've never read Ms Weir but if the quote above is representative, I wouldn't bother. Her conclusions are risible.

Risible's the word. I'm beginning to understand now why Minette got so cross whenever Alison Weir's name cropped up!

I wonder what - as an archaeologist - you make of the Helen Maurer article, ferval?

I've read through it quickly Temp, and I'm impressed but I need to read it more slowly and think it through. It's a pity there aren't plans to track her sequences of building and rebuilding but her conclusions seem admirably dispassionate at first glance. Has she an agenda of her own, I notice that she writes on Ricardian sites, I found this while checking her out? http://www.r3.org/bookcase/whodunit2.html Does that seem a reasonable account?
Her thoughts on the urn are very plausible; almost a reliquary where the power of the contents is amplified and directed through the agency of the container. And then, medieval reliquaries often didn't contain what they might be assumed to or even claimed to.

ferval wrote:

Has she an agenda of her own, I notice that she writes on Ricardian sites, I found this while checking her out? http://www.r3.org/bookcase/whodunit2.html Does that seem a reasonable account?

I suppose everyone has an agenda of their own, ferval! I think Maurer's is a feminist rather than a Ricardian one - she's written a book about Margaret of Anjou. Actually, I've never come across HM before today; but her discussion of the various suspects does seem perfectly reasonable, especially as she agrees with me that it was Margaret Beaufort what done it .

What about the Essex bricklayer theory? Seems just as plausible to me. The Richard Plantagenet who died in Eastwall, Kent, in 1550 seems to have been quite open about his past life, some of which had been as heir to the throne and quite a chunk of which was building walls in Colchester.

But then that would take the murder mystery out of the equation which makes for less revenue for the Weirs of this world, I suppose.

What's Gregory's take on the affair, is what I want to know? Surely that would have to be the last word on the whole caboodle!

nordmann wrote:

What's Gregory's take on the affair, is what I want to know? Surely that would have to be the last word on the whole caboodle!

"I ride away from Buckingham's dinner feeling oddly unhappy, not at all a woman in triumph. I should feel exultant: he thinks he has trapped my son into arming and fighting for his rebellion and actually we have ensnared him. The task I set myself is accomplished; God's will be done. An yet... and yet...I suppose it is the thought of those two boys in the Tower, saying their prayers and climbing into their big bed, hoping that tomorrow they will see their mother, trusting their uncle will release them, not knowing there is a powerful alliance now of myself, my son, and the Duke of Buckingham who wait to hear of their deaths, and will not wait much longer."

(A bit later.)

" 'The princes are dead and I am guilty of nothing. Buckingham did it.'

'At your suggestion.'

'Buckingham did it.'

'And are you sure they were both killed?'

I hesitate for a moment as I think of Elizabeth Woodville's odd words: 'It's not Richard.' What if she put a changeling in the Tower for me to kill? 'Both of them,' I say steadily.

My husband smiles his coldest smile..."

"The Red Queen" p284 and p290.

Powerful stuff! But Richard *was* a changeling! The boy put in the Tower with Edward V was actually a brickie's son. He walled his "brother" up in that secret chamber in the Tower and then escaped to Essex. The real Richard meanwhile went off to Burgundy to pretend to be Perkin Warbeck.

This really is all a load of nonsense, isn't it? It's getting too much even for me. Time to go back to Oliver Cromwell - someone *sensible*.

Ah, so Gregory's theory was based on one picture. Brilliant - this is the "extensive and thorough research" which she does often at a cost to her own health which she has mentioned in the past then.



Actually David Baldwin's bricklayer theory was badly reported when it was publicised five years ago. His aim had not been to "solve" the "Mystery of the Princes in the Tower", but to illustrate how historical theory when based on extant data and not traditional myth can often be radically different to how generally assumed historical "fact" appears. Too many historians, he argued, mistakenly use the elements of a myth as a starting point for formulating their own version of the theory, thereby reinforcing these elements as factual - a self-serving and circular method which would be frowned upon in any other discipline. When forced to start with demonstrable fact the result can be quite different indeed.

I've got Baldwin's "The Lost Prince" (I really enjoyed his book about Elizabeth Woodville), but I have to admit I never finished it.

I'll give it another go.

I'm jumping in feet first knowing that my name is synonymous with bordom and bad spelling, I'm trying to be fast! I love the way this is going but having made notes of the 1984 Trial, Starkey's arrogance (so rude!) lost it as well as the facts but the "defence" should have had more gusto too, I can't bear to see it again. But it's extremely well done. Apparently three High Court Judges did the same thing in the USA in the early 1990s and Richard was found not guilty again. Yet the entire "mystery" is only that because so many people like cetainty and are still deferencial to the Monarchy, all descended from Henry Tudor since 1485 and it's still here today!

During Elizabeth I's reign the Tower was so crowded with assorted dissidents all sorts of changes were made to get everyone in and human bones were discovered constantly! Nothing was done about them. The Romans put human bones in the foundations of buildings for good luck and the Tower and its environs have been in constant use since then. Of course no one will ever "disturb" the Wren Urn for DNA, or carbon dating, disrepectful!? On what grounds? The truth? But I think one day, the present duke of Gloucester and the nicely maturing Charles may overide the fawning Dean and Chapter and do something. Westminster IS an Old Peculiar.

But there was NO York Dynasty. Only one and half kings does not a Dynasty make. Edward IV usurped the throne from Henry VI whose grandfather had usurped the throne from Richard II, etc.. I think we are missing the point of Royal Succession. One has to be Royal and Legitimate to be taken seriously. We can't underestmiate the problems the Tudors had to be seen as Royal by contemporaries because they were not. They were War Lords who ruled through death and fear and later a little diplomacy. But here's the rub, well two...

I've been looking at this for some time ( ) and have come to the conclusion that it's very possible that Margaret Beaufort was NOT descended from John of Gaunt but Sir Hugh Swynford and Katherine. The other Beauforts obviously were but not John the eldest, he was conceived when Sir Hugh still lived! John may have had his doubts too, it was only after the others were born, after Sir Hugh's death that moves to "legitimaize" them were made. So there goes Henry VII's weak claim to be descended from Edward III, in my opinion. Tudor's Royal French blood was also illiegitimate, the Royal Council, never recognized the marriage between Katherine de Valois and Owain ap Twdwr. Would it have mattered anyway?
Quite simply, the Tudors had no Royal right to be Monarchs. They broke the royal line of succession exceeding well. BUT 500 years on, who cares? Well I do. If the Monarchy makes the rules and we are their humble subjects, they have to stick to the rules too! Do as I say, not as I do. And we all do!

The fate of the Princes? In brief, it's shocking. Historians have failed us all
here which is why this problem still runs and runs, so little makes sense. The important, interesting bits have been closed off for discussion for so long under the "it's obvious" clause. Tyrell never confessed. I was shocked when I realized that; Buckingham's Rebellion was NOT in the name of the Princes; it seems more than "likely" that Edward IV did "marry" Lady Elenor Butler and what's most harrowing is that the youngest "Prince in the Tower" was very probably hanged, drawrn and quartered by Henry VII in 1499.

WHY do we want to believe what we are told? The more research I've carried out into who was Perkin Warbeck, the more I've become convinced that he was Richard duke of York. Of course we have his disclaiming "confession" but how many of you believe that a "confession" given under torture is a true and accurate account of events?

It's a complex story but for starters, we have someone whom we are told is the is the son of a wealthy boatman from Tournai who has two bodyguards? He knows one of Richard III's closest friends, Sir Edward Brampton, a wealthy Portuguese Trader by coincidence. Born in 1473, he only remembers brief episodes in his life. He travels with Sir Edward to Portugal and then arrives in Ireland. There he is treated as a Prince. People comment upon his likeness to Edward IV and say what delightful English Courtly manners he has and they love his posh Courtly English accent although he's only learned them both in a matter of weeks. Professor Higgins took longer than that to teach Eliza Dolittle to drop her cockney accent. Yet he goes with the flow and allows people to believe he is the youngest Prince in the Tower, Richard duke of York. He is handsome, delivers great speeches and the international spy network must be in over-drive. Of course the rest is History. He causes Henry VII a terrible lot of trouble and eventually meets the rightful death of a lowly born traitor.

Meanwhile these spies have reprorted back and Warbeck has been acknkowledged by most European Royal Houses to be the person he says he is, when not under torture, Richard duke of York. Odd in itself IF it was generally believed at the time that Richard III had murdered his nephews, the Princes in the Tower. Politics is a dangerous game and many may have said so to cause trouble for the newly arrived Tudors. Yet its hard to believe that so many were antagonistic against them and continued to be so for so long. From the Holy Roman Emperor to the king of Scotland.

We are told that Warbecks' courtly manners and splendid English accent are to be explained by the fact that he was "taught" by the sister of Edward IV and Richard III, Margaret of Burgandy. And yet, he was born in 1473 and she left to marry Charles of Burgandy in 1468 and only made one visist home in 1480. She knew very little of the gossip of daily Court Life, too busy keeping Burgandy from being annexed by France and what's more no letters have ever been found to show she took an interest in day to day events in England. There is no record of them ever having met before he "came out" and what did she have to gain from all of this? She was an intelligent, pragmatic woman. How could she educate him about people and events she knew nothing about? She appears to have loved her brothers Edward IV and Richard III, surely an imposter would have been an anathma to her? But this is simply silly logic.

There is so much more...Sorry to be a bore. But it is fascinating stuff. And why would Richard only murder one brother and make provisions for the other which he appears to have done with some planning and cost? We'll only get to the bottom of this if it's all out in the open.

(p.s. The reason I can't stand Weir is not only because she gets her facts wrong but is never surprised by anything and calls herself an "historian"! Barabara Cartland without the honesty!

I tried so hard to read, "The Red Queen" but honestly thought there would be a change in prose style, a "Tarah" moment when she would say, "only joking"! No one, has a poker so far up their body as that!
Gregory's "Joan of Arc" was obnoxious in every possible way and I simply gave up atempting to read her turgid prose style. Dostivesky is more fun!

BUT what is her facination with fish? OK Elizabeth Woodville of Grafton Regis' mother Jacquetta was from Luxumbourg and they had a thing with Mermaids however Eliz and mummy wear scaley, luminuous gowns with fish tails trailing behind and all I can think of is the smell. No scent of April Violets or Red roses here...only mackral or smoked herrings...stinky! Especially at a crowded Court. And I like fish!

What is worse, I know Grafton Regis well and from her descriptions I can tell Gregory does not know the place and I dare say she's only been there for book signing. Gregory and Weir are being called "historians" now. They are to History what David Starkey is to relaxation and world peace. Makes one want to give up! What IS the point?

Minette,

glad to see you overhere. I have not that much time to get here regularly as I am so involved in the French Passion-Histoire and I follow also the American Historum.

Kind regards from your friend,

Paul.

Hi Minette,

Glad to see you here.

I really do think you're barking up the wrong tree suggesting that Hugh Swynford was John Beaufort's father.

Lots to say about Perkin, but no time now - back later.

Don't go away!

SST.

Very informative posts, guys....

Have we looked at the Buckingham argument and refuted it, left-field as it is?

Could Buckingham have murdered the Princes, and also had the idea of marrying Elizabeth of York? Could his rebellion have been motivated by that overall ambition?

Or does the fact that his rebellion had little to do with the Princes scotch that theory?

Buckingham was already married, shivfan - to a woman whom he despised - Catherine Woodville, sister of Elizabeth Woodville.

Mancini says that Stafford deeply resented having been forced into this marriage. (He and Catherine had been married as children.)

Some say Buckingham had had his eyes on the crown since Edward IV's time. Margaret Beaufort had him weighed up all right. I'm just going to reread what Sir Thomas More says about him.

Back in a jiffy.

Thomas More says this of Buckingham:

"Very truth it is, the duke was a high-minded (haughty) man, and evil could bear the glory of another; that I have heard of some (that said they saw it ) that the duke, at such time as the crown was first set upon the protector's head, his eye could not abide the sight thereof, but wried (turned) his head another way. But men say that he was of truth not well at ease...

...But soon after his coming home to Brecknock (Buckingham's great estate in Wales) having there in his custody...Doctor Morton, Bishop of Ely...waxed with him familiar. Whose wisdom abused (deceived) his pride to his own deliverance and the duke's destruction."


Morton did "deliver" himself of course; he escaped during the Duke's rebellion. Buckingham was executed, and Morton later became Henry VII's Archbishop of Canterbury and one of the Tudor's most trusted advisers.

My head's spinning this morning from trying to work out Buckingham's claim to the throne. It was easily better than Henry Tudor's. It's obvious why this Duke - who was descended from both the English and French royal families and many of whose ancestors had fought by William the Conqueror's side at Hastings - loathed the upstart Woodvilles. He was utterly humiliated by his marriage to one of Elizabeth Woodville's sisters. I'm sure Buckingham had absolutely no intention of helping another upstart - Henry Tudor - to the throne. It's also obvious why he had to be eliminated. One Plantagenet got rid of by another Plantagenet. Tails we win. Heads you lose. A Tudor motto.

Was his hatred of the Woodvilles so great that he had also been willing to kill - or organise the killing of - two Woodville children? Maybe. They stood in his way to the throne, and having the blame for such a terrible deed pinned on Richard of Gloucester was undoubtedly a stroke of political genius. Was Buckingham egged on? Very possibly.

I've also discovered that there were no fewer than *three* Margaret Beauforts, all related! Henry Tudor's mum was Margaret Beaufort, of course, but confusingly (it's even worse than all those Poles and de la Poles) our Duke of Buckingham's mum was *also* a Margaret Beaufort. See next post!

OK - Buckingham's royal descent:

Edward III

|

Thomas of Woodstock

|

Anne of Gloucester

|

Humphrey of Gloucester 1st Duke of Buckingham d. 1460

|

Humphrey Lord Stafford d. 1458 married Margaret Beaufort (no, not *the* Margaret Beaufort, another one - see below)

|

Henry Stafford 2nd Duke of Buckingham exc. 1483 married Catherine Woodville

Buckingham also had a double dollop of Beaufort blood - from his mother and from his maternal grandmother, Joan Beaufort, who was John of Gaunt's daughter. He was an aristocrat all right - one that embodied the old nobility - no wonder he was disgruntled!

Back in a bit to explain who all these wretched Margaret Beauforts were.

OK - this is really complicated. I'm sure nobody's at all interested, but I couldn't stop once I'd started! Sorry.

There were *three* Margaret Beauforts - all related and then related again through marriage. There was an Aunt Margaret Beaufort who had two nieces, both called Margaret Beaufort who were cousins but also, for a time, sisters-in-law.

It all starts with John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. They had four children all of whom were legitimised by the English Parliament and by the Pope. Their first child was John Beaufort (sorry, Minette, I *cannot* accept your idea that JB was actually Hugh Swynford's son - just doesn't make sense).

John Beaufort became the Earl of Somerset.

He had several children, including John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, died 1444, and Edmund Beaufort (I think he's the one Margaret of Anjou fancied, but that's another story - see Philippa Gregory) who *also* became Duke of Somerset, following his brother John's death. There was also a daughter, Margaret Beaufort, who married the Earl of Devon and went off to live near Torquay. She is the Aunt Margaret Beaufort (MB Number 1) and we can forget her.

But she had two nieces also called Margaret Beaufort! These two we cannot forget.



Margaret Beaufort (MB 2) - daughter of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset - the really important Margaret Beaufort. She married four times:

(1) John de la Pole (forget him - they married as tiny children and marriage was dissolved).

(2) The big one - Edmund Tudor. He died in 1456, leaving a thirteen-year-old MB pregnant with the future Henry VII.

(3) Oh dear God - this gets *so* complicated - Henry Stafford, brother of Humphrey Stafford, father of our Duke of Buckingham. Margaret Beaufort (Number 2) was thus Margaret Beaufort (Number 3)'s cousin *and* her sister-in-law. See below.

(4) Thomas Stanley - the bloody, bloody traitor who let Richard III down at Bosworth.



Margaret Beaufort (Number 3) - daughter of Edmund, Duke of Somerset. She married just once (thank God):

Humphrey Lord Stafford. Their son was Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, our D of B, executed in 1483.

I need some tea.

It would have been better for all if Edward III, John of Gaunt's father, and Katherine Swynford, John of Gaunt's third wife, had never been born. One way or another the entire aristocracy of England and Scotland are descended from, and related through, those two and their numerous offspring.

This is going to take a while to digest Temperance. I believe most of the offspring of John of Gaunt and KS were illegitemate but later legitemised. I hope Minette gets to see it and I would be interested in her opinion.

Strangly I was reading your recomended book Tinker Tailor etc. and in the intro J Le Carre said he had been searching around for the origin of the use of the word mole for a spy when someone sent him details from a book.

Page 240 of Francis Bacons' "Historie of the Reigne of Henry the Seventh" published in 1647. It said:- As for his secret Spialls, which he did imploy both at home and abroad, by them to discover what Practices and Conspiracies were against him, surely his case required it: Hee had much Moles perpectually working and casting to undermine him.

Gran wrote:

Strangly I was reading your recomended book Tinker Tailor etc. and in the intro J Le Carre said he had been searching around for the origin of the use of the word mole for a spy when someone sent him details from a book.

Page 240 of Francis Bacons' "Historie of the Reigne of Henry the Seventh" published in 1647. It said:- As for his secret Spialls, which he did imploy both at home and abroad, by them to discover what Practices and Conspiracies were against him, surely his case required it: Hee had much Moles perpectually working and casting to undermine him.

I am so tempted to say I knew that, Gran, but I didn't! Really interesting "mole" snippet from Bacon - thank you!

Thankyou Paul, old friend! Wataching the oddly emotional Queen's Concert! Why is music so emotional? Even when you don't like it! Stevie Wonder now! But don't you think the Welsh Shirely Bassey and Tom Jones have extraordinary voices? Instruments not only voices. Anyway, so good to see you here. Do hope that all is well with you.

SST., I had tons of unofficial "auntie" Margarets as a child and all were nasty, save one perhaps! Elegant, very slim, one with matching Borgieois (skinny, big hairy dogs) and gave me a lasting inferiority complex. Don't like Margarets. BUT you are becoming very flustered by Bucks, why? Two Marageret Beauforts, Henry's mum and Bucks' mum are constants, others come and go as do Joan Beauforts and the Somersets, which is my mission to explain! Sorry Love Suggs! Distractions! He's still gorgeous. Hurrah! Bishop Rowan is there too. He really is a nice man, we talk in the small Church in Wales and write to each other. "Now to give myself up to the pleasure of writing"...what a lovely man. This Jubilee confuses me!
And so to Paul Mac? In the public eye for 7 years as part of the Beatles and revolutionised popular music. Time means nothing, people and their new ideas do.
Lets be decadent and believe unorthodox things. The Beauforts. Liz Taylor and Richard Burton were lambasted in 1962 for both being married and committing double adultery! Times that by 1,000,000 back to 1372 when Katherine Swynford was still married to Hugh Swynford and John to Blanche Duchess of Lancster comitting double adultery! If John really loved Blanche the wife who began his climb to being really rich, (as A. Weir tells us the death of her sister the equally rich Maude was an accident! How dare people mention murder!) In my opinion it wasn't nice of him to have an affair with with Katherine the married
nanny. And if he loved her so much why marry the Millionaress Constnaza of Castille not his true love, nanny Katherine when Blanche died?

Of course A. Weir found it terrible hard work writing about "Katherine" after the splendid work by Annya Seaton (she could read and research and write well) and her work was not easy....It usually seems to be! Wikapedia and all that stuff... Try following in Shankespeare's footsteps! However facts...A, Weir seems to find frightening. Quite simply John O'Gaunt, inspite of special and wonderful taste (A, Weir and how does she know?) so not A. Weir he kept Katherine on for sex and married Constanza for money, standing and an heir. How he liked to to be called My King of Leon! What a poser! To think I adored him once and as a late baby my mother said I'd be born when she finished the book! I was too.

And so what worried me was the gap between the offspring of John and Katherine and when they were legitimised. Sir Hugh died of wounds (100 Years War) 1372, the year that John Beaufort was actually born. It takes nine months to have a baby. The wicked Cardinal Henry Beauforts b. 1375, Thomas/Tamkin b. 1377 and Joan Beaufort b. 1379. Constanza died in 1394 and yet John the romantic took another two years to decide to marry poor Katherine. The old rouee may have been looking for yet another rich heiress to wed but this is my impirical conjecture. Oh to be a romantic child and discover the truth! He was richer than the king when he died and had helped to de-throne Richard II due to his terrible advice. Such as the Poll Tax which led to the burning of central London. Tax those with a head unless they can afford it, it was called the "Taille"Tax in France and led to the FRench Revolution. We can't tax the rich! They move abroad! Where have I heard before? Anyone here heard of Keynes?

Of course John O'Gaunt, the duke of Lancater's son, Henry Bolingbroke by his first wife Philippa did usurp the English Throne from Richard II, the king John O'Gaunt was meant to wisely advise and did not, and so the Houses of York and Lancaster were set up, verging upon war. If anyone was to blame for the Wars of the Roses it must be John of Ghent/O'Gaunt, time server, gigolo and Hedge Fund Manager extrodinaire. And so to his children by nanny Katherine, the Beauforts.

Legitimized twice by Richard II and Henry IV IF they did not claim the throne, we all know what happened next. They did, under Margaret Beaufort, mummy of Henry Tudor.VII AND got away with it. However, SST I do not believe as a mother that Margaret Beaufort was the issue of Katherine Swynford and John O'Gaunt. The timing is out AND John made no move to "legitimize" his Beaufort offspring until the second son Hnery was born, three years later. And so did Henry Tudor have any claim to the throne? It's a question which must be asked I'm afraid.

Apologies for being basic. Henry Buckingham follows of course but have seen the woodcut of him, his handwritng and of course visited what's left of his castle at Brecon/Brecknoc where "Moreton's Tower" can still be seen from his stay/sumptuous imprisonment there?
Cheers, Minette.

Minette Minor wrote:

Hurrah! Bishop Rowan is there too. He really is a nice man, we talk in the small Church in Wales and write to each other. "Now to give myself up to the pleasure of writing"...what a lovely man. This Jubilee confuses me!

Yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury certainly appeared to be getting into (or is that onto?) the Groove Train (one for fellow Apprentice fan, ferval, there ) did he not, bopping away to Macca's attempts to sing. Grandad dancing at a party is bad enough, but when it's the Primate of All England...

Julian Clary's Jubilee tweet comes to mind: "Please make it stop."

Minette Minor wrote:

And if he loved her so much why marry the Millionaress Constnaza of Castille not his true love, nanny Katherine when Blanche died?

Well, that's men for you, Minette.

Looks like our grand village BBQ and tree planting is going to be rained off today, so I'll probably be back later to talk about the Beauforts. Cue Julian Clary again...

[. And so did Henry Tudor have any claim to the throne? It's a question which must be asked I'm afraid.[/quote]

Yes, by conquest equally as valid as that of William I and Henry IV.

Minette Minor wrote:

And so did Henry Tudor have any claim to the throne? It's a question which must be asked I'm afraid.

The question is irrelevant.

Legitimacy - or royal descent for that matter - does not matter. Henry Tudor - once safely crowned - was King of England because he had been *recognised* and - crucially - *anointed* as such.

A king - or queen - becomes king or queen in England "by proclamation, by acceptance and by oaths of allegiance" and, of course, by the anointing and recognition rituals within the coronation ceremony, those solemn rituals which "wipe out all past evils."

We may not like David Starkey's performance in "The Trial of Richard III", but his comments on this legal point have to be taken seriously; he quoted Sir Edmund Plowden (I think from his "Treatise on Succession"): "Accession is like a very diamond - yea, the Philosopher's Stone - which wipeth out all blot."

Starkey, of course, pointed out the example of Elizabeth I. She had been declared illegitimate in 1536 (and she was the daughter of a convicted traitress) - that ruling on her status was neither challenged nor changed: Elizabeth lived and reigned, not just as a virgin, but as a bastard.

So the status of the Beauforts is really irrelevant to the argument - Henry Tudor could have been fathered by the illegitimate grandson of the Bishop of Bangor's butler (he was actually) - but once anointed and recognised he was the king all right. How long he would manage to hold onto the crown was another matter altogether, of course. There was always the danger that others would put themselves forward as more suitable candidates for those all-important rituals - right of conquest and all that, as Mad Nan points out.

The whole idea of a legal "claim to the throne" was actually a bit of a farce. John O'Farrell puts it quite nicely in his chapter on the Tudors ("An Utterly Impartial History of Britain: or 2000 Years of Upper Class Idiots in Charge"):

" 'Oi, Henry Tudor, don't you tell me what I can and cannot do or I'll make you regret it!'

'Yeah? You and whose army?'

'Well, *my* army actually, this massive one right behind me...' "

PS There was nothing remarkable in John of Gaunt's taking so long to marry Katherine Swynford - what was remarkable was that he married her at all. Men in his position were not accustomed to marrying their mistresses. Remarkable also that Richard II gave his consent, and that the Pope (as well as Parliament) later legitimised all the children of the union.

Why on earth would Gaunt have recognised John Beaufort as his son if there was *any* doubt as to his paternity?

But it's perhaps unwise to get bogged down with the Beauforts here.

Mss Weir and Gregory are to history what Agent Orange was to gradening. However, one matter over-looked we can inspect, Tanner and Wright were not "detecting" from the start they took for granted the bones belonged to the Princes then set out to prove it.

DNA may not be possible but at least we could use Carbon Dating. Used for all things archeaological before El Alimos? I have become death. The early 1940s anyway. It can be quite accurate as to time scale. BUT one thing we consistantly overlook as do so many is simply ........The only reason WHY we "believe" the Princes in the Tower were buried at the foot of the stairs is due to St/Sir Thomas More. He said they were buried there..................Then moved!

On Richard III's intructions to a place more fitting for the sonnes of a kyng, Sir Peter ad Vincula? And so according to More and Tradionalists, the bones found at the foot of the stairs can't be those of the Princes. How many times!? Sorry.

So I can I be queen! Whoopie! I just have to raise a large enough army and all will be well. We shall beat them all! Heat seeker missiles the lot! It's wonderful news.

To think that I have been subjected to four long days about information concerning a very nice lady I've never met who is vastly wealthy, enjoys a tremendously privalaged life style (did Kate mary Wil to get an insider look at the Queen's private pictures?) and will hand her billions and lifestyle to her offspring because ...A war was once won....Nothing to do with breeding, the royal line of succession or silly things like that, just a battle won and then "royal" was tagged onto that over the dead and dyeing bodies...Let'sface it Kate is really common, wasn't her grandpa a coal miner? And Princess Diana, a commoner too, as the daughter of an Earl who was descended from Charles II, trumping Charles and his boggly eyed German Hanovarians, less common than the royal family AND so it all makes sense now! Might IS Right!

Having listened to so many mad sycophants telling us what hard work the queen has done since she was born why should I be shocked that some believe she can still cure "the king's evil" ? I saw someone's "Who do You think are"? once and he was descended from God via Edward III. But it's all do with killing after all.
I thought as you became older you were supposed to become more right wing but I'm becoming a Marxist. Germany is taking over Europe. Greece has had it's Democratically elected government taken over by Euro Technocrats and Merkel rules because an American Bank became maddened by Greed.

"The law is the manifestation of the wishes of the ruling classes" said Marx. Greed ate up the Lib Dems so why not go with what's left of justice. The Queen is only our leader because she is rich and well-armed. Sod Royality, let's see if might is really right! Denis Skinner is more of a gentleman than Cameron could ever be, he has honour and integrity and probably a better left hook, which by your reckoning is what really matters.

Last thing, William the Conqueror, Henry IV, Henry VII and William of Orange (you left him out) were all backed by overseas merceneries. They usurped the English Throne. Richard III was made king by a simple Act of Parliament; no armies were involved, which strangely none of you appear to have mentioned yet. No coup d'etat.

It was said that when the "invited" William of Orange became the centre piece of the "Glorious Revolution" in 1688 his fleet in the Thames and off the Isle of White, was akin to the Spanish Armarda, a fact strangely often over-looked.

Second to last thing, after making copious notes and quoting the young Dr David Robert Starkey's pompous and pretentious ramblings he said at length that the it was the combination of being declared king TOGETHER with the annointment of holy oil that made one a true Monarch, wiping out all problems of illegitimacy.

I so wanted Dillon to ask If so, why didn't Henry VIII save a lot of time and money and the destruction of this country through the Reformation by having his own illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy by Elizabeth Blount, made his true heir?
IF illegitimacy meant nothing, it was a simple "red herring" then why didn't he perform these simple actions upon his bastard son, Henry Firtzroy, Earl of Richmond? WHY? Henry VIII had the Force to Inforce it and as we know Might is Right, not mere birth and royality stuff...
Any thoughts? I wish! You may at least try...

Minette Minor wrote:

I so wanted Dillon to ask If so, why didn't Henry VIII save a lot of time and money and the destruction of this country through the Reformation by having his own illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy by Elizabeth Blount, made his true heir?
IF illegitimacy meant nothing, it was a simple "red herring" then why didn't he perform these simple actions upon his bastard son, Henry Firtzroy, Earl of Richmond? WHY? Henry VIII had the Force to Inforce it and as we know Might is Right, not mere birth and royality stuff...
Any thoughts? I wish! You may at least try...

It seems Henry was seriously considering it when he bestowed upon Fitzroy the Dukedoms of Richmond *and* Somerset - both royal titles. The little Duke was also made Earl of Nottingham and a Knight of the Garter. Jessie Childs points out that it was the first time since the 12th century that a king of England had raised his illegitimate son to the peerage "and it precipitated a whispering campaign that he might one day name him as heir."

Whispering campaigns perhaps can be dismissed as unimportant, but Acts of Parliaments you have to take seriously. The Second Act of Succession, passed in June 1536, declared that both Mary and Elizabeth were "taken, deemed and accepted illegitimate to all intents and purposes, and shall be utterly foreclosed, excluded and barred to claim, challenge or demand any inheritance as lawful heir to your Highness by lineal descent." The act went on to state that *if* Henry did not have any legitimate heirs "of his body" by his new queen, Jane Seymour (or any future wife), the King had "full and plenary power" to assign the crown to whomsoever he wished either by issuing letters patent or by the terms of his will. Prof. Eric Ives says this legislation was "revolutionary". Ives goes on:

"...Henry did have heirs - the children of his two sisters. But in specifying legitimate heirs "of his body" Henry was asserting the right to disinherit his heirs at common law in favour of his own nominee. The act does not identify the nominee, but the king undoubtedly had in mind his bastard son, the Duke of Richmond."

In the event Richmond died just after the Second Act of Succession became law, but the act had most definitely raised the possibility that Richmond could have ascended the throne. Writing in 1655 Thomas Fuller explored the possibility that neither Mary nor Elizabeth would have sat on the throne if Richmond had survived:

"Well it was for them that Henry Fitzroy his natural son (but one of supernatural and extraordinary endowments) was dead; otherwise (some suspect) had he survived King Edward the Sixth, we might presently have heard of a King Henry the Ninth, so great was his father's affection and so unlimited his power to prefer him."

S.T. Bindoff says that the changes Henry attempted to the common law of inheritance "encouraged the idea that the succession to the throne was not something settled and unalterable but that it could, and perhaps should, be regulated by the reigning sovereign in what he considered the national interest."

The crisis of 1553 was all about this - Mary and Elizabeth were still bastards according to Henry's *third* Act of Succession of 1544, but he had put them back in the succession after their legitimate brother, Edward. The claim of Henry's illegitimate daughters came before the claims of his legitimate nieces. Many believed that the old king had had no right to do this. So, yes, Mary Tudor had to fight for her right to be made queen against what Diarmaid MacCulloch calls Jane Grey's "quite reasonable hereditary right to the throne." And fight this Tudor did and of course she won. But it was a close shave.

First thing Mary did as queen was to have an act passed recognising the validity of her mother's marriage to the king - she got herself legitimised in other words.

Elizabeth never bothered. But she was forever plagued by her cousins - the tiresome little Grey girls and the one in Scotland.



PS Re PM - I was talking about little Henry Pole, son of Lord Montague, disappeared in the Tower around 1542, not quite a "Prince in the Tower", but, as Edward Earl of Warwick's great nephew and the Countess of Salisbury's grandson, the Plantagenet heir.

Re Henry Pole - I was hoping Minette would return with an anti-Tydder tirade - she would be quite justified.

It is remarkable that no one ever says a word about the little Pole lad. Henry Pole, great great nephew of Richard III and grandson of Margaret Pole nee Plantagenet, was described by Cardinal Pole, his uncle, as "the remaining hope of our race" (a really daft thing to have said, but just the sort of tactless thing Reginald Pole often came out with - he really did like poking adders to make them hiss). Young Henry Pole could easily have been a future king: he had inherited the Earl of Warwick's excellent claim to the throne. His father, Henry Lord Montague, had been executed in 1539 and his grandmother followed her son to the block in 1541. It appears that Henry VIII had this heir of the Plantagenets treated particularly harshly - the aged Countess of Salisbury must have worried dreadfully about her grandson, remembering how, when she was a little girl, two other young boys - her cousins - had disappeared in the Tower. And of course she had good reason to fear the worst.

Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador, reported that after Margaret Pole's death the young Plantagenet, who until then "had occasionally permission to go about within the precincts of the Tower, was placed in close confinement, and it is supposed he will soon follow his father and grandmother." The ambassador added, "God help him!"

No payments for the boy's meagre diet are recorded after late 1542. How he died (he was about fourteen) remains a mystery.

A third "Prince in the Tower"?

Temperance wrote:

Minette Minor wrote:

And so did Henry Tudor have any claim to the throne? It's a question which must be asked I'm afraid.

The question is irrelevant.

Legitimacy - or royal descent for that matter - does not matter. Henry Tudor - once safely crowned - was King of England because he had been *recognised* and - crucially - *anointed* as such.

A king - or queen - becomes king or queen in England "by proclamation, by acceptance and by oaths of allegiance" and, of course, by the anointing and recognition rituals within the coronation ceremony, those solemn rituals which "wipe out all past evils."

We may not like David Starkey's performance in "The Trial of Richard III", but his comments on this legal point have to be taken seriously; he quoted Sir Edmund Plowden (I think from his "Treatise on Succession"): "Accession is like a very diamond - yea, the Philosopher's Stone - which wipeth out all blot."

Starkey, of course, pointed out the example of Elizabeth I. She had been declared illegitimate in 1536 (and she was the daughter of a convicted traitress) - that ruling on her status was neither challenged nor changed: Elizabeth lived and reigned, not just as a virgin, but as a bastard.

So the status of the Beauforts is really irrelevant to the argument - Henry Tudor could have been fathered by the illegitimate grandson of the Bishop of Bangor's butler (he was actually) - but once anointed and recognised he was the king all right. How long he would manage to hold onto the crown was another matter altogether, of course. There was always the danger that others would put themselves forward as more suitable candidates for those all-important rituals - right of conquest and all that, as Mad Nan points out.

The whole idea of a legal "claim to the throne" was actually a bit of a farce. John O'Farrell puts it quite nicely in his chapter on the Tudors ("An Utterly Impartial History of Britain: or 2000 Years of Upper Class Idiots in Charge"):

" 'Oi, Henry Tudor, don't you tell me what I can and cannot do or I'll make you regret it!'

'Yeah? You and whose army?'

'Well, *my* army actually, this massive one right behind me...' "

PS There was nothing remarkable in John of Gaunt's taking so long to marry Katherine Swynford - what was remarkable was that he married her at all. Men in his position were not accustomed to marrying their mistresses. Remarkable also that Richard II gave his consent, and that the Pope (as well as Parliament) later legitimised all the children of the union.

Why on earth would Gaunt have recognised John Beaufort as his son if there was *any* doubt as to his paternity?

But it's perhaps unwise to get bogged down with the Beauforts here.

I have O'Farrell's book, and thoroughly enjoyed it....

I suppose Buckingham's claim to the throne was no worse than Henry Tudor's. Buckingham was arguably the Tudor claimant was the the strongest claim...stronger than Henry Tudor's.

And even though Henry VII took the throne by force of arms, he conveniently legitimised it by marrying Elizabeth of York. Buckingham could've done the same...get rid of Katherine (his wife), using the route of divorce, if necessary. Hell, that action was followed not long after, wasn't it?

I liked your posts but really don't see what "being royal" means any more. Simon Schama states that, "the rules of medieval kingship were quite simple. The king had to be of royal blood, legitimate, obviously male, preserve the lands of his ancestors, protect Mother Church, do justice and suppress evil laws and customs".

When one starts to adjust, tweak, fiddle and generally mess about with it, let us simply leave it alone! It's an archaic idea anyway. I'm sure the queen is very nice but watching the bowing and scraping over the Jubilee weekend I wonder...Her background is awful, all those weirdo Hanovarians who couldn't bother to learn English and ended up becocoming multi billionairres and working very, very, very hard! Yet how they suffered! Totally ridiculous.

I don't know if it's because the Lib Dems sold out so easily but I used to believe that education etc could change things, money was nasty. If you tweakthe system enough hey presto! Anyone could be queen, king, earl, who cares? I am not impressed. It's 2012, I think that Kate and William really love each other, good for them but...Apart from checks and balances on power what is the point and WHY do people want to worship? It'll be Posh and Becks as Lord and Lady something soon. Money really CAN buy anything. They used to say Brains, Beauty and Breeding were not for sale. Why not?

Look at the "history" books on sale! Tweaked to oblivion and earning millions. I despair. Sorry to be depressing....Passing thought, Starkey is a prat. Elizabeth and Henry VIII's "children" apart from Fitzroy were "different" due to the Church under-going such change in this country at the time, it's a cheap shot one would expect from him. Under "normal" circumstances if a woman and man are not married when a child is born it is not legitimate, pay the Pope to see to it possibly but it woudn't work with my Parish priest. Oddly enough until the English conquered Wales illegitimacy, if acknowledged, was acceptable.

Sorry for repeating myself but DO we need a Monarchy anymore? Really!

Minette Minor wrote:

Apart from checks and balances on power what is the point and WHY do people want to worship? It'll be Posh and Becks as Lord and Lady something soon. Money really CAN buy anything. They used to say Brains, Beauty and Breeding were not for sale. Why not?
.

Well this is a bit off topic for this thread Minette, but you may like to have a look at the Philippa Gregory thread where we have touched on a similar question.

shivfan wrote:

And even though Henry VII took the throne by force of arms, he conveniently legitimised it by marrying Elizabeth of York. Buckingham could've done the same...get rid of Katherine (his wife), using the route of divorce, if necessary. Hell, that action was followed not long after, wasn't it?

On what possible grounds could he have had his marriage annulled? Don't forget there was actually a good case in canon law for declaring that the dispensation allowing the union of Henry VIII and his sister-in-law, Catherine of Aragon, should never have been granted. As far as I am aware, Buckingham hated his wife, but he nevertheless accepted that his marriage to her was quite legal - in the eyes of man and of God. A divorce - or rather an annulment - would have been very hard to fiddle, even with a helpful Pope. Ironically, it would have been easier had his wife been of the English aristocracy: most of them were related one way or another - cousins twice or three times removed (because of Edward III), so no doubt *some* convenient impediment could have been found.

And to marry another Woodville girl, albeit the daughter of Edward IV - or rather his *bastard* daughter? Don't forget Richard III's parliament had declared all of Elizabeth Woodville's children by Edward IV to be illegitimate. I think Buckingham would have kept that ruling on the statute book!

I really have enjoyed reading these posts, you've covered a lot of ground. And there is so much ground to cover! Promise not to rant, just meander, but I think the post, sorry forgot who made it, about the bones being found at the right time for Charles II follows a line of thought which must be considered.

I watched Starkey the other day rambling on about how Henry VIII did become a tyrant! I've been doing "body counts" of monarchs and Henry VIII is in the lead with 72,000 known, ordered executions and yet he said, the Yorkists considered him to be "one of them" due to his mother, Eliz of York! I do feel sorry for her, always under the "charge" of the ghastly Margaret Beaufort. Starkey never did explain why if Henry VIII was considered to be "one of them", they all wanted him dead.

The point must be made that Henry VII had such a weak, if non-existent claim to the Throne, obviously he had to smear Richard III's reputation, if not very well at the time, but ALL future Royal Houses would be descended from Henry VII and the Tudors. And I mean everyone from the Tudors, to Stuarts, to Hanovarians, Saxe Coburg Goeta to the Windsors. Queen Elizabeth II is only our present Sovreign, due to her forefather Henry VII.

Remember, Henry VII made a great effort not to make it look as though he owed anything to his wife, Liz of York, he was king De Facto, he married her as a social "niceity" and he didn't have her crowned until two years after he became king and that was only with the "prompting" of the Lambert Simnell "uprising" at the major, bloody Battle of Stoke, where RIII's named heir, the Earl of Lincoln was killed attempting to put "Lambert Simnell" on the throne. Why?

The simple fact is, who was the usurper? Henry VII or Richard III? Of course we all know today who it was, RIII but even today many constitutional lawyers will beg to differ. I've been doing this for far too long but watching the Queen en famille at the Diamond Jubillee, something is not right...Her Majestic most Royal Highness, serves a constitutional purpose, checks and balances etc., but although I'm sure she's very nice etc., she's a trillionairre with benefits because she's descended from Henry VII who once won a battle he didn't even fight in. Why aren't the descendents of the Earl of Oxford Monarchs? He did all the work and then had to fight a court case to get his assets back from Henry, proving his mother the elderly Countess of Oxford had been made to cry by Richard III under duress! She was a flaming Lancastrian and Plantagenets didn't kill women as the Tudors did. The Tudors would have chopped off her head, she feared catching a cold at Middleham Castle!

It is all totally ridiculous. But all we care about today is not why Parliament proclaimed Richard III to be king but what happened to the "Princes in the Tower" and this really is a fairly recent phenominon. Henry VII only began looking into their possible whereabouts (no searches of the Tower) after the Lambert Simnell event. He was content to build an oratory for Henry VI (Lancastrian) at Westminster until it became so very nice he took it for himself.
Of course we have all become so inculcated with the "it's obvious" school of thought those who differ are sentimental, non-historians.
However what you didn't add SST was that when Walpole wrote his "Historic Doubts" in 1768 was that he added something to the effect that Richard's III reign has become so messed up it's not unlike the pantomime, Jack the Giant Killer.

Shakespeare gives Iago a great speech in "Othello" all about how if someone steals my purse they have nothing BUT if they steal my reputation they have my very being...words to that effect. Now this takes the biscuit AND makes one wonder if the real Shakespeare was indeed the Earl of Oxford, son of the Lancastrian General...Off I go again! Something is stinky in the royal house of Saxe Coburg Goeta, sorry about the spelling the Germanic "Royal Houses" of Majestic monarchs bores me silly! Gerorge VI's first language was German/English, Hitler admired Edward VIII's unaccented pure German and we aren't often told that queen Victoria had a German accent, why? Yet we all know what there is to be known about Richard III....

Der, Walpole said like "Jack and the Bean Stalk". my mistake. I am the kiss of death to discussions on this matter, a depressing thought. Just ignore me.

I don't think anyone is ignoring you yourself Minette. I think we are just a tad tired of Richard and the Princes, as now anything discussed is merely a repetition of what has already been said many times on those mammoth BBC threads.
I, for one, would enjoy it if you could join in on any of the other discussions, or even begin a new one on a different topic.

Islanddawn wrote:

I, for one, would enjoy it if you could join in on any of the other discussions, or even begin a new one on a different topic.

Couldn't agree more. Please stay around, M., and get us all arguing again!

Have you watched "Richard II"? I recorded it (I was away last week) and I'm watching it now. It's utterly, utterly brilliant.

That Bolingbroke started it all, didn't he? Yet he's not vilified like Richard. Not fair!

Superb, isn't it? I did wonder though, is it possible for production values to be too high? There were occasions when I found myself so dazzled by the costumes, sets etc that I almost forgot to listen.The RSC Caesar set in Africa was much sparer and I found that allowed me to concentrate more on the words, easily distracted as I seem to be.
In that vein, given the obvious attention paid to all the components of the production, I was intrigued by the choice of a black actor to play the bishop of Carlisle and I've been mulling over the possible implications of that. Was this to point up some kind of otherness about that character or am I just over analysing?

ferval wrote:

Superb, isn't it? I did wonder though, is it possible for production values to be too high? There were occasions when I found myself so dazzled by the costumes, sets etc that I almost forgot to listen.The RSC Caesar set in Africa was much sparer and I found that allowed me to concentrate more on the words, easily distracted as I seem to be.
In that vein, given the obvious attention paid to all the components of the production, I was intrigued by the choice of a black actor to play the bishop of Carlisle and I've been mulling over the possible implications of that. Was this to point up some kind of otherness about that character or am I just over analysing?

There was a nice irony in having a black Bishop of Carlisle deliver these lines:

"Many a time hath banished Norfolk fought

For Jesu Christ in glorious Christian field,

Streaming the ensign of the Christian cross

Against black pagans, Turks, and Saracens..."

But a double irony too perhaps in that, if John Sentamu becomes the next Archbishop of Canterbury, we shall have as Primate of All England a black ultra-conservative who - sadly - would seek to *exclude*. Sentamu is against gay marriage.

I have no idea if such irony crossed Goold's mind when he cast the excellent Lucian Msamati as the Bishop (probably not), but it crossed mine.

I thought the sets were brilliant, but I especially liked the one with Richard flanked by golden angels. A group of angels surrounds Richard in the Wilton Diptych, and angels carrying Richard's arms were used to decorate the roof of Westminster Hall. A lovely touch.

Wasn't the fragile Ben Wishaw perfect as Richard? RII was such a weak, foolish king, but the combination of Wishaw's superb acting and Shakespeare's superb poetry had us all rooting for him. Richard was the ultimate drama queen we know, but gosh was he good at it - and he absolutely ran rings round all those macho men!

PPPS Here is some history stuff about the Bishop of Carlisle:

http://www.shakespeareandhistory.com/bishop-of-carlisle.php

As an interesting aside, the "real King of England" has just passed away in Australia aparently there was a TV programme about him. The Earl of Loudoun was a fork lift driver and happy with his lot. He descended from George Plantagenet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9373273/Rightful-king-of-England-dies-in-Australia.html

His title has now passed on to his 37 year old son.

Simon! We can't have a King Simon, Gran!

Who knows, he might make a very good King!!! What is the matter with Simon? Good for a laugh anyway. Here is Tony Robinsons take on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0o7vD4uHsU

The whole Abney-Hastings theory rests on whether Edward IV was illegitimate, and all that Blaybourne nonsense, which I thought had been disproven some time ago?

Besides anyone hailing from Jerilderie can't possibly be king of anywhere, good grief what a dead-end horrible place it is.

The thriving metropolis of Jerilderie

Gran wrote:

Who knows, he might make a very good King!!! What is the matter with Simon? Good for a laugh anyway. Here is Tony Robinsons take on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0o7vD4uHsU

Unfortunately the YouTube link is blocked here, Gran.

Seems Richard of Gloucester was willing to believe the story about Blaybourne and his mother.

Goodness gracious do we have censorship from on high?

Must be censorship Gran, we have no trouble playing the link here. I'm actually shocked that they would do that, are the powers that be so insecure and what happened to free speech?

But Richard of Gloucester wanted his bum on the throne Temp, he was going to believe anything that was convenient.

Daddy Eddy Dickie

I reckon he is legitimate, same mouth and eyes as the sire.

Hi ID I found the Tony Robinson story quite interesting, did you watch all 4 parts? it says a lot about H7 and H8 and their systematic killing off of the competition. Aparently Eddies Mum and Dad were 150 miles apart at the time of conception so who knows.

Islanddawn wrote:

Must be censorship Gran, we have no trouble playing the link here. I'm actually shocked that they would do that, are the powers that be so insecure and what happened to free speech?

Copyright issues with Channel 4.

Islanddawn wrote:

But Richard of Gloucester wanted his bum on the throne Temp, he was going to believe anything that was convenient.

I think I've heard that argument before - can't think where.

Now that you mention it Temp, I did experience some deja vu whilst typing this morning. And had vague visions of a square which was numbered 1.

I haven't had time to sit down to watch (and concentrate) on it Gran, but I have seen it before. It was on History Channel a couple of years ago, although if History Channel is running true to form, it would have been repeated a few time since then too.

Although I must admit I am not a great fan of Tony Robinson, he tends to sensationalise a bit too much for my liking.

The only persona I enjoy watching Tony Robinson as, is Baldrick, he was excellent. I believe they complained about him on Time Team because he sat in his car all the time untill the cameras hove into view. He seems to have improved lately.

I wonder if Channel 4 or the History channel have on demand versions.

I seem to have been thrown out of the TW suite, when I type out an entry it appears ok but when I go back later it is gone, have I done something wrong?

Oh heck Gran, I suspect that may be the fault of ID and myself in our role as apprentice moderators! You double posted at one point and, flushed with unaccustomed power, we tried to delete one of the posts but it didn't seem to work. Now we may have buggered it up well and truly and deleted all your posts there. Try again but if it doesn't show up or stay visible then I'm afraid it may need to wait until Nordmann gets back or looks in and clears up our doo doos.
Sorry but I did warn him he was taking a big risk in letting me have control of any of the buttons of power.