"If" Richard III had won at Bosworth? | Page 5 | Historical Debates | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
"If" Richard III had won at Bosworth?
April 8, 2014
12:42 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well he didn’t exactly get honoured but he had a Christian burial and they would have treated his body with respect, they were Franciscan monks after all.

The epitaph near his tomb said that he “was justly called Richard the Third” and that “Fighting bravely in war, deserted by the English,
I succumbed to you, King Henry VI” So yes it is pretty clear Henry wanted people to remember Richard was a king, and that he was a formidable enemy. After all why would he want to lessen the impact of his rather amazing victory?
Unfortunately sometimes these things are too logical for people Confused

Try Elizabeth Norton’s book on MB, I have been trying to read it on and off but haven’t had time, but is is good, what I have rad so far I enjoyed. There is a good academic bio by Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood but it is hellishly expensive. But Jones recommends Elizabeth Norton’s bio.

April 8, 2014
11:59 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Olga said

Well he didn’t exactly get honoured but he had a Christian burial and they would have treated his body with respect, they were Franciscan monks after all.

The epitaph near his tomb said that he “was justly called Richard the Third” and that “Fighting bravely in war, deserted by the English,
I succumbed to you, King Henry VI” So yes it is pretty clear Henry wanted people to remember Richard was a king, and that he was a formidable enemy. After all why would he want to lessen the impact of his rather amazing victory?
Unfortunately sometimes these things are too logical for people Confused

Try Elizabeth Norton’s book on MB, I have been trying to read it on and off but haven’t had time, but is is good, what I have rad so far I enjoyed. There is a good academic bio by Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood but it is hellishly expensive. But Jones recommends Elizabeth Norton’s bio.

Exactly, H7 wanted to underline his victory as much as possible. Painting a David vs Golith resuult to Bosworth made his claim as ruler by divine right through divine might all the more powerful a statement.

Henry was king because he deposed a cruel tyrant rather than Henry was king because everyone thought his wife was the rightful queen ( jure uxoris).

It's always bunnies.

April 9, 2014
12:13 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

I don’t believe that Henry Tulip willingly ordered his men to abuse Dicky’s body in such a shcking way either.

All Henry had to do was ensure every-one who mattered knew Richard was dead. Holding a funeral of a body was good enough proof of death.

Mutilating the dead body of a foe, while not entirely unknown , doesn’t correspond with H7’s modus operendi. He was some-one who got things done and moved on.

I’m almost sure he didn’t order it but I doubt if he did much to stop it at first. I think he or one of his genreals would have stepped in before the corpse was damaged beyond recognisibility.

It's always bunnies.

April 9, 2014
7:54 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thank you for the book info Olga, I’ll keep an eye out for them.
Henry Tulip I think was a complicated as his mother in his mind set. Although he paid all due respect to R3 as King and a formidable enemy which he was. I have heard that he alledgely dated his reign from the day before Bosworth, therefore making out that R3 was the usurper etc.

I agree Anyanka it wasn’t uncommon for a king or commoner to be mutilated by their enemy when they had been killed. Poor King Ella found that one out for himself, when he was sentenced to death by Ivar the Boneless (who ruled York at that time) and his brothers, in revenge for King Ella’s murder of their father Radnar Lodbrok. Poor Ella was sentenced to what is called the “Blood Eagle”
The blood eagle was a method of torture and execution that is sometimes mentioned in Nordic saga legends. It was performed by cutting the ribs of the victim by the spine, breaking the ribs so they resembled blood-stained wings, and pulling the lungs out through the wounds in the victim’s back.
Not at all pleasent.
Ivar alledgely killed Edmund(who was later named a saint) King of East Anglia. Edmund was tied to a tree and had arrow shot into him till he died, again I presume that death would not be a quick option and that Ivar would have told his men to prolong Edmund’s death for as long as possible.

I suppose at least with R3 death it was honourable and he died fighting to save his country. He actually holds the acolade for being the last English King to die in battle. He’s not the last one to go ito battle I think that acolade goes to George 1st.
I wonder what his court would have been like if he had won Bosworth? Would it be like it was in the days of his brother a hedonistic mix of wine, woman and song, or would it be a controlled, and quiet court?
I always had Richard down as a boring, dull and lacklustre type of person, and very different charater altogether from his brother. What were his likes and dislikes. Did he enjoy music and art? was he open to new ideas?

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 9, 2014
2:11 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said
…I always had Richard down as a boring, dull and lacklustre type of person, and very different charater altogether from his brother. What were his likes and dislikes. Did he enjoy music and art? was he open to new ideas?

my understanding is that the current view is that he was quite well read, and well read enough to annotate his books with his own notes. a much quieter kind of chap than Edward IV, possibly a bit earnest, possibly without the social skills/personal political antennae of Edward, maybe a bit of a prude – but who was dilligent, conciencous etc… i’m pretty sure Murray-Kendall wrote that he liked jewellery and clothing, though whether he liked them because he liked them, or whether he liked them because they made him look rich and important is something i don’t know…

i’d be interested to know what there is on his views of religious/political/philosphical issues – his attitudes to religious reform/Protestantism/Levellers, or the role of democracy (or at least the 15th centurys version of democracy…) in governence etc…

April 9, 2014
4:17 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

my laptop is stupid, and though its flattering, thinks that everything i post is so groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting that it needs to be posted twice.

bloody thing…

April 9, 2014
7:52 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Be careful Bob if your computer is anything like mine it takes the hump and shuts down when you call it names. I proved that mine certainly does have a very volatile personality the other night, when I was chatting to one of my freinds on Yahoo. I was trying to send a file to him, and Nova (all our computers have names. This one is called Nova, but I do have a Buenhilda Mk 2 as well and she likes to play silly buggers now and again too.) wasnt playing ball so I got a little cross and called her a few names along with some very colourful expletives as well. With that she promply shut down on me and wouldn’t reboot for almost 10 minutes as she was sulking. Buenhilda is a real sulky puss and sometimes won’t reboot for an hour or more, thankfully I only use her to store games, music and film files on so when she sulks she can simply just get on with it.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 10, 2014
8:38 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

My laptop is named ORAC….

I think Richard’s court would be a quieter court than the one which flourished under Edward IV and Elizabeth Wydville. Richard was as well educated in the social nicieties as were his siblings. He would be able to play a musical instrument like the lute and sing as well as read and write.

From what I have read the household he maintained as the de facto ruler of the north of England was a sober household which concentrated on keeping the king’s peace.

I think that a post-Bosworth Richardian court would ahve been less flambouyant but still with those feastings and follies that surrounded the king’s routines even if Richard personaly disliked them. Though if he had re-married then his wife may have livened uo his court.

It's always bunnies.

April 10, 2014
10:24 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Nice Blake’s 7 nostalgia there Anyanka.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 11, 2014
10:41 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bo I actually don’t remember that part in the book, it’s been ages since I read it. I suppose she’s playing out the act of murder from different points of view there and who feels responsible

So I just realised that this part of the thread is over a year old, silly computer, but I feel I need to say what I wanted to say before the discovery so I can sleep LOL

I haven’t read the books but in the TV series The Red Queen clearly makes a decision to ask for the Princes to be killed, while the Kingmaker’s Daughter appears to sanction their murder, she then spends the rest of the series wondering if they died because of her careless agreement with the keeper. So for me it feels like another PG copout of wanting to point the finger at somebody but not committing fully to her conviction and just muddying the water and throwing in another name (Anne) into the potential who killed them pot. All I got from the sries is that it couldn’t have been Richard cause he was so noble and nice and caring and didn’t really want to be king.

April 11, 2014
12:50 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill I don’t think that Richard really did want to be KIng. He was happy enough to be on the regency council etc. But when Stillington came forward and said “Hey old chum, E5 can’t be King and neither can his brother because E4 wasn’t free to marry E.W” Richard had to reconsider the situation, plus there was the added hassle of having a child King on the throne too. R2 and H6 had both been child kings and no end of problems had been caused in England because of it. R2 and the Wat Tyler rebellion for a start of and then in H6 reign the Wars of the Roses had kicked off.

Plus the Woodvilles weren’t exactly very popular Think about it for years the Woodvilles had been staunch Lancastrians, then one day E.W was sat under a tree to plead her case with the King concerning her boys rights after the death of their father at the hands of the Yorkist King, and next thing we know they have turned their coat and said “We love the Yorks” I don’t suppose a lot of people found that easy to swallow, and in an age where suspition and mistrust were rampant. No one could be really sure what the Woodvilles were really up to anyway.

R3 had no choice under all that came out about E4 and his mixed up love life. If Eleanor Butler had been truly married or just plight trothed, it made E.W marriage a no no and the children bastards, coupled with the child king issue R3 did what he felt was right for England and it’s people.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 12, 2014
1:11 am
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

PG didn’t throw Anne Neville into the mix to muddy the waters Bob. She was quite clear that (in her world) MB killed the Princes. The whole Anne Neville thing was a device to cause tension between Anne and Richard – and also to use the whole ‘punished by God’ thing because their son died. PG has apparently got a whole new generation of people blaming MB for murdering the Princes.

Nobody really cared that the Woodvilles had been Lancastrians Bo. And they didn’t ‘turn their coat’ when Elizabeth married Edward either, they had sworn fealty to Edward after St. Albans, and Jacquetta intervened to keep London safe when Margaret of Anjou came in with her troops in after Towton. Edward didn’t marry Elizabeth for at least three years after the Woodvilles bent the knee to Edward.

The nobility didn’t like the Woodvilles because they were “commoners”, but the commons liked EW and her beautiful brood of babies well enough.

Richard had choices. An ecclesiastical court was one of them. he decided to go with Stillington’s version instead.

April 12, 2014
5:09 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

PG didn’t throw Anne Neville into the mix to muddy the waters Bob. She was quite clear that (in her world) MB killed the Princes. The whole Anne Neville thing was a device to cause tension between Anne and Richard – and also to use the whole ‘punished by God’ thing because their son died. PG has apparently got a whole new generation of people blaming MB for murdering the Princes.

Thanks for that insight Olga. As I said I haven’t rad the books yet, they are sitting in a pile to be read still got to finish The Tournament (damn stupid interfering work) and then The King’s deception before I start to tackle the books of PG’s cousins Wars. My interpretation of what PG was trying to say came solely from the mini series. The mini series definitely had MB order their deaths but the scene involving AN definitely muddied the mystery and then having her be all woah is me afterwards just added to it. Maybe PG was happy to say it was MB but the producers of the mini series didn’t want to be so decisive.

All I know is that the mini series definitely made me feel that Richard deserved to be king (after Ed iv died), mainly because I couldn’t cope with MB’s self entitlement that her son deserved to be king because she thought so. I almost wanted Henry to fail in the battle just so MB could get a wake up call that she wasn’t all that LOL

April 12, 2014
1:00 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Good one Bill. I agree it would have been good to have seen the smug look being wiped off M.B clock about “er Henry Tulip” being divinely appointed by God etc to be King. It really got my goat at the end when she looked up and said “I am Margaret Regina”

I actually wonder what would have happened if Henry Tulip had died in battle. What would become of “Margaret Regina” I certainly think Richard wouldn’t allow her to get away with her treachery against him a second time. She had already proved herself capable of doing the dirty on him. I rather think she would have been given 2 choices? Bog off into a convent or I’ll string you up. Certainly I think Sans Changer would be shorter by a head, and his son too.. He certainly would look very (Lord) Strange without a head.

One of things I find very odd about the whole battle of Bosworth is why did Henry Tulip date his reign from the day before the big showdown at Bosworth? I think it was all down to money personally. I know that there were very few Lords left after Bosworth, so I’m guessing that those who had survived on the wrong side (Richard’s) side would be willing to part with any ammount of money to 1 Save their life, land and wealth, and 2 any commoner would literely sell their soul in order to buy a title, land and wealth.
But surely the same could have been said if Richard had cut down Henry Tulip instead.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 12, 2014
7:49 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said
…One of things I find very odd about the whole battle of Bosworth is why did Henry Tulip date his reign from the day before the big showdown at Bosworth? I think it was all down to money personally. I know that there were very few Lords left after Bosworth, so I’m guessing that those who had survived on the wrong side (Richard’s) side would be willing to part with any ammount of money to 1 Save their life, land and wealth, and 2 any commoner would literely sell their soul in order to buy a title, land and wealth.
But surely the same could have been said if Richard had cut down Henry Tulip instead.

Henry Tudor dated his reign from the day before the battle as a measure to convict, in one go, everyone who fought for Richard III at Bosworth of treason. this made them spectacularly vunerable, and therefore willing to go to almost any lengths to rehabilitate themselves in his eyes – no ‘retiring to their estates to get their heads down and see which way the wind blows..’ for supporters of York, they had to get down to London, drop to their knees and open their wallets, and draw the sword against any flicker of a Yorkist resurgence, and do it as fast, and as publicly, as they could.

brilliant tactic – no trials, no having to find evidence, just an administrative stroke of the pen and you’ve got most of the nobility and merchant classes with the sword of Damocles hanging over them… political genius.

April 12, 2014
8:51 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thank you Bob I thought that was what it was. It was a case for all those who were left cough up and bow down to me as King or i’ll chop your head off. It was a quick way of making a fast buck too I suppose. Henry Tulip was quite a sneaky little turd when it came to fleecing his nobels. I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before somewhere on the forum but one of his little money making scams, was to tax his nobels a set amount such as £100 those that coughed up the readies willingly clearly had more money than sence and so he said give me more, which of course as they didn’t want to lose their street cred with Henry Tulip they would pay up.
Those who pleaded poverty and more time to pay, were clearly hiding money away and so he charged them even more, a kind of late pay fine, so they too had to cough up or lose their street cred with Henry Tulip.. In short as you rightly say Bob a no win situation.
In some way I can see his point in doing it this way, as if all those who had survived Bosworth had chosen to die, either by having their head loped off or falling on their swords, although Henry Tulip would have a lot of titles, I believe in the event of no heir to a title it reverts back to the crown, he would have no money to keep them anyway, and the amount of blood fueds it would spark when Henry Tulip gave them to his freinds would be unthinkable even now..
Henry Tulip master stroke in marrying Elizabeth of York was also a form of a guarentee that the York affinity would stay true to him, as Elizabeth’s husband. It was a gamble but it was a gamble which did at least pay off. Was he a good king? Well yes and no, Yes because he brought peace but then England under Richard although tangled was more or less at peace. Richard had to deal with Buckingham’s rebellion and a few other little hiccups, but to me they were minor when you look at what Henry Tulip had to deal with.

For a start off there was his Step Uncles betrayal, then the Pretenders rebellion Lambert Simnel was seen really more as a joke but it did kind of give the people enough doubt to suspect that the Princes could well have been smuggled out of the Tower safely, the fact that Margaret of York (E4’s sister) claimed that both the boys (at different times) were in fact the Princes all added fuel to the fire. Lambert Simnel’s rebellion was based on the people involved as taking completely forgranted that the young Earl of Warwick was actually dead, when Henry Tulip produced the boy,(real Earl of Warwick) any support Lambert had melted away and the people then thought the whole thing an joke.
However Perkin’s pretence did have some credibility, and it was clear the boy was coached throughly, that even now people still question if there is a possiblity that he was indeed Richard of York. I do find it strange that Perkin was strung up whilst Lamert was put to work in the kitchen’s and became a royal falconer by the time he had died.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 13, 2014
11:41 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said … I do find it strange that Perkin was strung up whilst Lamert was put to work in the kitchen’s and became a royal falconer by the time he had died.

i think the reasoning is pretty obvious – Simmel claimed (or had it claimed for him..) to be a person the King had locked up in the Tower, and who the King could produce at any time convenient to him. as an imposter, thats a pretty lame choice of ‘impostee’. he wasn’t Warwick, everyone knew he wasn’t Warwick, and even if he was, he was the son of George, Duke of Clarence, as unpopular a man in Yorkist England as it was possible to be.

so not only did everyone know it wasn’t him, but that even if it was him, precious few would be interested in shedding their own blood on his behalf. he was a lightweight threat, a non-entity towards whom Henry VII could afford to be magnanamus in victory.

Warbeck however was a different kettle of fish, not only could he be the person he claimed to be, but his impersonation was sufficiently good that he might well have been who he claimed to be. he was also the ‘son’ of a very popular, well regarded King for whom there was a lot of sympathy. Warbeck was a very serious threat, an existential threat, one either H7 destroyed, or who would destroy him. not one Henry VII could laugh off and say ‘off to the kitchens with you boy!..’.

i think the crux is that Henry VII held him in the tower for 2 years before executing him, and spent that time (and lots, and lots of money) trying to work out who he was – yet he did not ask the people able to determine the truth in 5 minutes flat to meet Warbeck: his ‘sisters’. the conclusion is stark – Henry VII thought there was a good chance they would confirm his identity, and then Henry would have a problem.

i’m firmly of the view that when Henry Tudor won at Bosworth he believed that both Princes were dead, otherwise he would never have repealed Titulas Regius, but that by the time our friend Warbeck arrived on the scene he was nowhere near as sure as once was. now Warbecks remains and DNA, that would be something worth finding…

April 13, 2014
12:18 pm
Avatar
Olga
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 766
Member Since:
October 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said
i think the crux is that Henry VII held him in the tower for 2 years before executing him, and spent that time (and lots, and lots of money) trying to work out who he was – yet he did not ask the people able to determine the truth in 5 minutes flat to meet Warbeck: his ‘sisters’. the conclusion is stark – Henry VII thought there was a good chance they would confirm his identity, and then Henry would have a problem.

Warbeck was released from the Tower and lodged at Henry’s court for some time, he was only sent back to the Tower after an escape attempt. It is highly doubtful that Elizabeth of York failed to say anything to her husband about him in the 18 months Warbeck was at court.

April 13, 2014
7:05 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Warbeck certainly did give Henry Tulip a real headache that’s for sure, and as you say Simnel’s “rebellion” was a dead duck from the outset.. This is purely an opinion here, but perhaps the Simnel “rebellion” was a kind of trial run, to test the water and to see if the big “rebellion” aka Warbeck, would actually find support in England.
If Simnel’s rebellion had succeeded I doubt the poor kid would have enjoyed his fame for long, anyway, as 1 as we know the real Warwick was still alive, and even if he wasn’t it would lead to 2. George Clarence was hated as Bob has pointed out, so therefore I don’t think this imposter son would be around for long, He would meet with some illness or accident, maybe even as strange as it seems he would rule until Warbeck turned up, being the alledged son of an annoited and crowned King he would take presedence over his so called cousin. Therefore it would be bye bye King Simnel and Hello King Warbeck.

I still find it very strange that Mararet of York (E4’S Sister) should actually support both pretenders. What was she hoping to gain? I could understand it to a certain degree if she had met both boys at some point during their life time, but she hadn’t, she was long gone from England by the time they were born. Did she actually stop and think what would happen to her nieces? especially the Queen, if either rebellion had actually succeeded? Because I’m pretty certain if one of the rebellions had succeeded they would have been slaughtered along with all those who could say otherwise and I’m afraid that Queen Elizabeth would be among the first to go the stake.

I think Warbeck’s pretence, and his subsequent death did perhaps cause a few qualms of doubt in Queen Elizabeth’s mind. Was Warbeck really her brother? I think she must have at least tried to save his life when he was caught plotting an escape with the real Earl of Warwick, but in the end I think she realised that he would have to die as the lives of her own children as well as her own would be put in serious danger, but her mind must have been in torment, as Warbeck was led to the Scaffold, that she might have condemned her own brother. I feel that perhaps she would have been tormented by that memory for the rest of her life too.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 26, 2014
4:55 pm
Avatar
Jasmine
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 161
Member Since:
December 30, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
100sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bob the Builder said

Boleyn said
…I always had Richard down as a boring, dull and lacklustre type of person, and very different charater altogether from his brother. What were his likes and dislikes. Did he enjoy music and art? was he open to new ideas?

my understanding is that the current view is that he was quite well read, and well read enough to annotate his books with his own notes. a much quieter kind of chap than Edward IV, possibly a bit earnest, possibly without the social skills/personal political antennae of Edward, maybe a bit of a prude – but who was dilligent, conciencous etc… i’m pretty sure Murray-Kendall wrote that he liked jewellery and clothing, though whether he liked them because he liked them, or whether he liked them because they made him look rich and important is something i don’t know…

i’d be interested to know what there is on his views of religious/political/philosphical issues – his attitudes to religious reform/Protestantism/Levellers, or the role of democracy (or at least the 15th centurys version of democracy…) in governence etc…

We know a lot about Richard’s personal books – he had quite a few – there is an excellent book “Richard III’s Books” which I have, but is now out of print and changing hands for megabucks over the Internet, which lists all the books known to have been in his possession. They range from military books, books on chivalry, to copies of ancient Roman texts and religious works. A lot were in Latin and, as Bob mentions, Richard put his name in many of them or added bits. He also had a copy of an early English translation of the New Testament by Wycliffe, which is rather unusual.

Many of his books were second-hand which tells us it was the texts he was interested in. They show evidence of being well-read too.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427899

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1713

Posts: 23079

Newest Members:

Lauraerugh, RonnieSaurf, Fanngonntault, Dominatortault, FsbxGlync, LcxGlync

Administrators: Claire: 959