I finally found the Edward III penny I've been looking for.It wasn't cheap but it completes my lineup of medieval Edwards. It was minted in London between 1344-1351 and the label on the flip calls it "florin coinage".I'm not sure what that means. Anyway,here it is..and a pic of all 4. Also picked up this kinda cool square coin from Bactria.Here's a Wildwinds link to one like it (6F).:thumb: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/baktria/kings/apollodotos_I/t.html
Oh i like that Black Prince one & from my fav place in France :bow: :bow: Man i have to say thay are all lovely & thank you for sharing them with us. De Orc :kewl:
Thanks guys, I found out why this coin is called "florin coinage"...here is the 411: "Edward III's first coinage, between 1327 and 1335, is very similar to the Edward I and II pennies, with the inscription EDWAR ANGL DNS HYB around a front-facing bust of the king; these pennies were minted in London, Bury St Edmunds, Canterbury, Durham, York, and Berwick on Tweed. No more pennies were minted until his third, or Florin, coinage in 1344–1351 (so-called because the dies were made by two craftsmen from Florence)." source,Wikipedia
Mikjo0,the coins of King Edward V (1483) are extremely rare.They are similar to the last coinage of King Edward IV's 2nd reign (1471-83),but have the mark of a halfrose & a boar's head.So,you do not have the complete collection of all the mediaeval kings called King Edward,unless one counts King Edward VI (1547-53) as a mediaeval king. Aidan.
Aidan, You are right.I forgot about Edward V and will probably never own a coin of his. For those that aren't familiar with him,he became king at the age of 13 and reigned for all of two months,presumably having been murdered,along with his brother,by his uncle Richard,in the Tower of London.
Richard III didn't kill those kids anymore than John Karr killed JonBenet. That story was debunked years ago.
Ah poor old Richard allways looked upon as the Villain, have a read of this it was a very interesting documentry by the way with Tony Robinson (Time Team/Blackadder Fame) Evidence of illegitimacy In 2003, historian Dr Michael Jones revealed in a Channel 4 documentary (first broadcast January 3, 2004) previously overlooked evidence from Rouen Cathedral, France, discovered while researching the Hundred Years' War. In the cathedral register, an entry in 1441 records that the clergy were paid for a sermon for the safety of the Duke of York, going to Pontoise (near Paris) on campaign. He would have been on campaign from July 14 to August 21, 1441, several days' march from Rouen. If a child with a claim to the throne was born small or sickly it would normally have been recorded, and there is apparently no such record; consequently, proponents of the theory of illegitimacy claim it is likely that Edward was not born prematurely. By calculating back from Edward's birth on April 28, it seems apparent that Richard was not present at the time of Edward's conception around the first week of August 1441. Additionally, the cathedral records reveal that Edward's christening took place in private in a side chapel, whereas for the christening of Richard's second son the whole cathedral was used for a huge celebration, again suggesting to proponents of the theory that Edward was indeed illegitimate, although in spite of this, the Duke never disclaimed his paternity of his wife's eldest son. Some historians have raised the criticism that it is logistically possible for Richard Duke of York to have returned briefly from battle to Rouen because often military leaders led their forces from the rear. Dr Jones argues that, if it were true that Edward IV was illegitimate, this would have invalidated his claim to the throne of England thus rendering the existing royal family path as illegitimate. Dr Jones argues that tracing through Edward's younger brother, George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence (whom Jones argues was the legitimate heir), the current heir would be Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun who resides in Australia as a rice researcher. However, since King Henry VII claimed the throne of England through right of conquest, it can be argued that Michael Abney-Hastings is no more legitimate to the throne than the blood line of the Saxon kings of England who would have continued if William the Conqueror had not taken over. Furthermore, under English law, the child of a married woman is automatically considered the child of her husband unless he is disclaimed at birth. Since Richard did not do this, Edward remained his legal son and heir, whether or not he was actually Richard's biological son. Author Alexander Canduci also argues that George, Duke of Clarence and his heirs could not have succeeded to the throne of England, principally as they were barred from the throne by Parliament under a Bill of Attainder, and only another Act of Parliament could ever rescind this. Indeed, it was only this exclusion of George's descendants that allowed Richard III to ascend the throne, and after the death of his son Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, Richard considered his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, to be his heir, again excluding the Clarence branch. In the absence of an Act reversing the attainder, the Plantagenet-Hastings line were in the same situation as the male Stuart line after the overthrow of James II of England with no legal avenue to the throne short of conquest. Supporters of the Hastings claim counter-argue that as Edward IV was not the legitimate king, the attainder passed by his Parliament and given the Royal Assent by him had no legal validity. De Orc :thumb:
You should tell the folks at Britannia.com that Willie.Here's what they have to say: Edward V, eldest son of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, was born in 1470. He ascended the throne upon his father's death in April 1483, but reigned only two months before being deposed by his uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The entire episode is still shrouded in mystery. The Duke had Edward and his younger brother, Richard, imprisoned in the Tower and declared illegitimate amd named himself rightful heir to the crown. The two young boys never emerged from the Tower, apparently murdered by, or at least on the orders of, their Uncle Richard. During renovations to the Tower in 1674, the skeletons of two children were found, possibly the murdered boys. To be fair,there are many theories and suspects in the case of the "Princes in the Tower",here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower BUT....Richard is still considered the #1 "person of interest" unlike the wacky Mark Karr.He had the boys imprisoned and they disappeared under his watch,so he is responsible for what happened to them.
Me I am of the opinion (Well 2 realy LOL) that 1 the disposal of the Princes was properly carried out by a supporter of Richard, it woudnt be the 1st or last time that claiments to a throne dissapered LOL or annoyances were shall we say silenced. What I find harder to accept though is that Richard did it, after all the Princes were good barganing chips. This leads me on to possibility #2 that the youngsters were dissposed of by Henry Tudor Yep just think about this for a moment, he had just fought and won a civil war, so why would he want to hand over the country to a young boy when he could keep it for himself? De Orc :kewl:
Steve,Henry Tudor (who became King Henry VII) acceded the throne in 1485,not 1483.Besides,King Henry VII was actually in exile at the time that King Edward V & his younger brother disappeared from the scene. Aidan.
Aiden who defeated Richard? (I never mentioned a date by the way) the boys dissapeared from sight there is no record of who killed them so there is a possibility thet they were still alive when Richard was defeated. De Orc
