“…..’Richmond! When last I was at Exeter,
The mayor in courtesy show’d me the castle,
And call’d it Rougemont: at which name I started,
Because a bard of Ireland told me once
I should not live long after I saw Richmond.’…”
from Richard III by Shakespeare (Act 4, Scene 2, Lines 103-7)
So wrote Shakespeare of Richard III’s arrival at Exeter on his royal progress of 1483. And a very clever little anecdote it is, but highly unlikely. At the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, where Richard was killed through treachery and deceit, it’s doubtful Richard even glimpsed Henry Tudor, who called himself the Earl of Richmond. Tudor skulked at the rear throughout, hiding behind guards, too cowardly to even confront Richard face to face.
I wonder how many, if any, examples there are of someone actually leaping to a (usually fearful) conclusion over a name? I have just come across one of these premonitions—or prophecies—which, alas, is probably not factual either. It happened almost exactly eighty years earlier and concerns the death of Henry “Hotspur” Percy at the Battle of Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403. I found it in a delightful and beautifully presented little book by Dorothy Nicolle, titled Shropshire Walks with Ghosts and Legends. She contends that Shropshire is the county with most of said ghosts and legends. I don’t like to disillusion her, but first prize for that goes to Gloucestershire! 😊
Anyway, back to Hotspur. His strange warning involves an old witch, maybe even an old Irish witch. Why do I suggest this? Because when he was still a young man Hotspur accompanied his father-in-law, Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March, to Ireland, where March was the Lieutenant. This was in May 1380, when Hotspur was about sixteen, so maybe it was there that the witch told him he would die near Berwick.
Well, the important Percy family hailed from Northumberland so Hotspur’s immediate thought was that the prophecy was about Berwick-upon Tweed, near the Scottish border. But in 1403, as the Battle of Shrewsbury was about to begin, he discovered that the field was close to a hamlet known as Berwick (see the above map from Google Maps). On being told this he went ghastly pale and knew that his fate was to die in the battle. And he did.
murreyandblue 
Harry “Hotspur” would have been about 16 in 1380, not 26 since he was born May 20, 1364.
LikeLike
Corrected. Thank you.
LikeLike
Using a little scepticism, I assume the poor guy never went back in the whole of his adult life to the country pile (Alnwick) – which was pretty near Berwick (on Tweed)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Viscountessw, for years I too thought the same thing concerning Henry (of Richmond), that Richard never came within a mile of the trembling wunderkind but some months ago the Society had a zoom meeting with author Richard Mackinder to discuss his (years) at the Bosworth Battlefield. That experience led him to question many if not most of the accepted theories on what happened there on 22 August and resulted in his book on Bosworth, from the archaeology of the field – I highly recommend his book.
The points in his talk that stuck with me are fleshed out in his book and they speak to this issue – did Richard target Henry, or not? (If not, why not?) Both questions aroused considerable discussion. Mackinder’s observations, having spent years walking and riding the area, being intimately connected with the terrain, led him to revise Richard’s plan of attack (completely different from the traditional view) based on terrain, direction of his own forces, and apparently his own initiative to eliminate Henry the moment he saw the chance. He took down and killed Brandon first then unhorsed Cheney, whose ONLY purpose was to protect the actual body of Henry (no warrior himself and basically helpless without men like Cheney and Brandon in front of him). Mackinder (p.56) questions why Richard, who would have had a clear view of Henry, (hidden behind the mammoth figure of Cheney with the banner), didn’t make for that cluster hell-bent to take any and all standing around the banner, presumably one of them going down would be Henry.
During the talk Mackinder amended that point, believing Richard made the decision to take out Brandon then Cheney and upon his return loop by horse would cut down Henry, literally ‘easy pickings’ with his men in the charge – however William Stanley, who saw this plan develop, needed only 2 minutes (by Mackinder’s estimate) to rush down the field, between the two armies, with some portion of his troops, and within another 7 minutes (again Mackinder’s estimate) rallied his mounted men and dashed off to relieve Henry before Richard wheeled back to finish off Henry. According to Mackinder Stanley got to Henry in time to intercept Richard and his cavalry charge, drive them into the marsh (according to Molinet, Hall et al) and there Richard was surrounded and killed.
Mackinder describes a plan that could have and should have worked, the only question being if you are going to throw that lance (presumably the one that killed Brandon outright) Richard would then have used what ??? to knock Cheney from his horse? And then what to kill Henry on his return trip, sword, mace, axe?
Mackinder himself was at a quandary trying to figure out why take out Cheney when Richmond is RIGHT there, behind the banner, forget Cheney, if you have one throw, one good shot, take out that little weasel instead. Then again, while the plan scenario Mackinder suggests is a good one we don’t know how many built a human wall around Henry, or if he was disguised to protect him should the worst come to pass, or even what arms Richard had left at his disposal and he may well have planned to take Richmond a prisoner? A very tempting hostage?
Or, perhaps Richard was also using what they call the ‘horseman’s axe’ – a one-handed axe much used by mounted knights (it was popular with the Bretons during the French wars, even Robert the Bruce favored it) – this same axe will soon become the halberd, poleaxe, mace, war hammer.
as always Viscountessw, a great topic!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting indeed, Amma9542019. I hadn’t heard of this book or its theory before. Everything sounds only too plausible. Poor Richard. What a warrior…what an unfortunate victim of vile treachery. The only thing to cheer me is that Stanley paid the price later at the hands of the same “wunderkind” he committed treason to save! Some sort of poetic justice. Except, of course, that the weasel’s bum was stuck to the throne with superglue, and his descendants were limpets too.
LikeLike