Original sources

[Ernestina]

I don't know about you, but I'm becoming quite confused between history and fiction. Moreover even historians sometimes seem to give conflicting interpretations of the same facts.
That's why I'd like to trace to the original sources of information.

This evening I found some transcriptions of documents about Perkin Warbeck:
Documents relating to Perkin Warbeck
Some of the transcripts are in Latin and some in French, but that's the price to pay for originals.

How about dedicating a shelf to original documents?
We don't have to necessarily read them, sometimes it's just reassuring to know they really exist...

[Misfit]

Hi Ernestina, I will look at your suggestion later. I'm too tired and rummy from insomnia to figure if a separate shelf is do-able.

[Susan]

You might be able to do a thread where people post links to online original sources.

[Misfit]

I've been playing around with this a bit. I think you can add a "original documents" shelf when you add an individual book, but it isn't letting me put the shelf up there for you ahead of time. Want to try adding one and see if it works?

Otherwise, we could also set up a separate discussion thread here for them.

[Susan]

I just added some books under a "Primary Sources" shelf.

[Misfit]

Thanks Susan.

[Ernestina]

Thank you Susan, I added some books, too.

I couldn't add the book I referred to in my first comment because I'm not a librarian (yet).

Is it allowed to also add a link to a website where you can find the book for free (Project Gutenberg, Google books,...)?

[Misfit]

Ernestina wrote: "Thank you Susan, I added some books, too.

I couldn't add the book I referred to in my first comment because I'm not a librarian (yet).

Is it allowed to also add a link to a website where you can ..."

I have no problem with it, but I think (but not sure) that you can add a book without librarian status. Just not covers and some of the other really important stuff. Librarian status is handy so I can edit my books without bothering anyone else. There's also the Librarians group, you can ask them to add a book for you there.

[Ernestina]

I finished last week The Stolen Crown and The Deceivers. Both of them deal with the figure of the Duke of Buckingham, although in quite a different way.
In both the books it seems that his homecoming after the meeting with king Richard in Gloucester has been a crucial time in his life. The reason for his breakdown with Richard, the influence of the presence of John Morton in Brecon as a prisoner, these facts seem to have played a great part in his rebellion.
Does anybody know if original documents exist regarding this period? Perhaps something from the residence of Buckingham?

[Susan]

Sadly, Buckingham's records were burned when the Vaughans took over Brecon after Buckingham had left on his failed rebellion. Of course, he would have probably taken care to destroy anything that he didn't want to fall into the wrong hands, but it's a pity his household records haven't survived.

[Ernestina]

I suspected something like this happened, since you also said so in the book, but I hoped ... is it all fiction what you wrote of the meetings between Buckingham and Morton or is it based on a document? If you read The Deceivers what do you think about the hypothesis of Geoffrey Richardson? They're quite different from yours.

[Susan]

The Crowland Chronicle and various Tudor sources (chiefly More) place Morton at Brecon, and give him a leading role in fomenting the rebellion.

I've done no more than glance through "The Deceivers," as I saw his book on the Woodvilles and wasn't at all favorably impressed. He suggests that Morton, Buckingham, and Margaret Beaufort conspired to murder the princes, right? I very much doubt Morton was involved, because Richard offered him a pardon in 1484--something he is unlikely to have done if he believed Morton had murdered the boys. (Unless, of course, he was glad to see them gone.) Henry VII seems to have not known what happened to the boys, so I doubt his mother was involved. I think Buckingham remains a suspect, but not more likely in my opinion than Richard himself.

[Ernestina]

The silence of Henry VII for so many years is indeed one of the strangest things. If he knew the princes were dead he would have caught the opportunity of putting the blame on Richard, I think he didn't know of their fate. Regarding Morton, he seems very sneaky having succeded to maintain his position of power during three reigns with so different kings; on the other side Richard doesn't seem to have been always very clear-headed with his pardons and condemnations, he seems to have been guided more from his heart than his mind. But obviously this are my very superficial impressions, I need much more study .

p.s.: sorry for my sometimes fictional English, I'm always at war with the past tense.

[happy]

...p.s. sorry for my sometimes fictional English, I'm always at war with the past tense..."

Don't worry about it. Us native speakers can't get it stright half the time :)

[Susan]

I think your English is great, Ernestina!

I think Morton gets maligned. He was loyal to Henry VI until the very end, served Edward IV well, and probably would have served Edward V loyally had not Richard III taken over.