HISTORIANS!

I always thought that Starkey was cut from the same roll of material as Hicks and now I am convinced. In an article in the Times, Starkey, who is updating his biography on Henry Vlll (I must buy it....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting is similar to that of his mother's (although only a fragment of Elizabeth's handriting survives) this proves that, 'although it was unheard of at the time'...Henry's mother tutored him "both to read and as we can now see from the handwriting to write too".....have you ever read such a load of old cobblers?? He continues "Henry's handwriting shows how close he was to females in his youth....became emotionally dependent on women....to put it bluntly he was emotionally incontinent..." This is on the same lines as Hicks calling Richard a 'serial adulterer'.
Why is it todays historians (well Starkey and Hicks at any rate) cannot refrain from amateur psychoanalysing and try to con the book buying public into believing that that actually know what was going on in someone's head who has been dead 500 years. It is cheap and shabby and they would do well to take a leaf from the likes of Annette Carson and Bertram Fields who thoroughly research their subject. Why are people fooled by these "historian" I dont know....
Eileen

Eileen
I can only imagine they are as good at bullshitting publishers and
editors when they take them their manuscripts, as they are in
bullshitting the public once the books come out.
Not that I mind anybody saying nasty things about fat Henry!!
Paul


On 17 Mar 2009, at 19:56, eileen wrote:

> I always thought that Starkey was cut from the same roll of
> material as Hicks and now I am convinced. In an article in the
> Times, Starkey, who is updating his biography on Henry Vlll (I must
> buy it....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting is similar
> to that of his mother's (although only a fragment of Elizabeth's
> handriting survives) this proves that, 'although it was unheard of
> at the time'...Henry's mother tutored him "both to read and as we
> can now see from the handwriting to write too".....have you ever
> read such a load of old cobblers?? He continues "Henry's
> handwriting shows how close he was to females in his
> youth....became emotionally dependent on women....to put it bluntly
> he was emotionally incontinent..." This is on the same lines as
> Hicks calling Richard a 'serial adulterer'.
> Why is it todays historians (well Starkey and Hicks at any rate)
> cannot refrain from amateur psychoanalysing and try to con the book
> buying public into believing that that actually know what was going
> on in someone's head who has been dead 500 years. It is cheap and
> shabby and they would do well to take a leaf from the likes of
> Annette Carson and Bertram Fields who thoroughly research their
> subject. Why are people fooled by these "historian" I dont know....
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Not that I mind anybody saying nasty things about fat Henry!!
> Paul

Agreed. Henry was so awful in lots of ways there is hardly any need to make stuff up. However, its annoying that some people will actually be going around thinking he was taught to read and write by his mother simply because Starkey has deduced this on some nonsensical grounds.
My beef is with the people that make a very good living out of peddling ficticious "history". I know I keep banging on about other peoples books but when you stop and think about how much hard work some people put into their books its almost bordering on fraud...
But there you go....
Eileen
>
>
> On 17 Mar 2009, at 19:56, eileen wrote:
>
> > I always thought that Starkey was cut from the same roll of
> > material as Hicks and now I am convinced. In an article in the
> > Times, Starkey, who is updating his biography on Henry Vlll (I must
> > buy it....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting is similar
> > to that of his mother's (although only a fragment of Elizabeth's
> > handriting survives) this proves that, 'although it was unheard of
> > at the time'...Henry's mother tutored him "both to read and as we
> > can now see from the handwriting to write too".....have you ever
> > read such a load of old cobblers?? He continues "Henry's
> > handwriting shows how close he was to females in his
> > youth....became emotionally dependent on women....to put it bluntly
> > he was emotionally incontinent..." This is on the same lines as
> > Hicks calling Richard a 'serial adulterer'.
> > Why is it todays historians (well Starkey and Hicks at any rate)
> > cannot refrain from amateur psychoanalysing and try to con the book
> > buying public into believing that that actually know what was going
> > on in someone's head who has been dead 500 years. It is cheap and
> > shabby and they would do well to take a leaf from the likes of
> > Annette Carson and Bertram Fields who thoroughly research their
> > subject. Why are people fooled by these "historian" I dont know....
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

I knew Starkey was a snake oil salesman when I picked up his Elizabeth I book about a year ago. I got 20 pages in, and read something like "Modern psychologists would say that Elizabeth's aversion to marriage was because of bla bla bla child abuse bla bla victims of child abuse often abuse others when they become adults."

First, it was hard to figure out what exactly he was counting as child abuse or where he got the idea that all survivors of it go on to abuse others in adulthood. (????)

Second, I'm a psychology graduate student. Which I would like to think would make a "modern psychologist." So when I read that, the first thing I thought was, "Well, if by MODERN PSYCHOLOGIST you mean your MISunderstanding of psychology in the 19th century, then sure." The man was attempting to make a Freudian conclusion about Elizabeth's state of mind. But, even though Freud is a total quack and I disagree with everything he says, even FREUD would not have come to the conclusions Starkey did, and second, even if Freud had, Freud came up with his ideas 100 years ago! Psychology has moved on, Mr. Starkey. I'm sorry if you're too lazy to do your research. And besides, a GOOD psychologist would never attempt to analyze the mental state of someone who died 500 years ago. The cultural, societal, religious, etc differences are so large that we simply cannot attempt to use modern (real modern, not Starkey modern) psychological terms and ideas to describe them.

I had to put the book down after that. I was too livid. Dumb to get so worked up, probably, but I was just furious.

Plus, there was (stupidly) an interview with Starkey in the back of the Elizabeth book where he came off as a complete pompous jackass. I really had to wonder why the publishers were willing to put it in the back, unless he angered someone at the company and they wanted to get back at him.

Sorry for the long rant, guys, I just get very worked up when historians play psychologist.

Also, this is my first post, so *cowers*

MAP

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not that I mind anybody saying nasty things about fat Henry!!
> > Paul
>
> Agreed. Henry was so awful in lots of ways there is hardly any need to make stuff up. However, its annoying that some people will actually be going around thinking he was taught to read and write by his mother simply because Starkey has deduced this on some nonsensical grounds.
> My beef is with the people that make a very good living out of peddling ficticious "history". I know I keep banging on about other peoples books but when you stop and think about how much hard work some people put into their books its almost bordering on fraud...
> But there you go....
> Eileen
> >
> >
> > On 17 Mar 2009, at 19:56, eileen wrote:
> >
> > > I always thought that Starkey was cut from the same roll of
> > > material as Hicks and now I am convinced. In an article in the
> > > Times, Starkey, who is updating his biography on Henry Vlll (I must
> > > buy it....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting is similar
> > > to that of his mother's (although only a fragment of Elizabeth's
> > > handriting survives) this proves that, 'although it was unheard of
> > > at the time'...Henry's mother tutored him "both to read and as we
> > > can now see from the handwriting to write too".....have you ever
> > > read such a load of old cobblers?? He continues "Henry's
> > > handwriting shows how close he was to females in his
> > > youth....became emotionally dependent on women....to put it bluntly
> > > he was emotionally incontinent..." This is on the same lines as
> > > Hicks calling Richard a 'serial adulterer'.
> > > Why is it todays historians (well Starkey and Hicks at any rate)
> > > cannot refrain from amateur psychoanalysing and try to con the book
> > > buying public into believing that that actually know what was going
> > > on in someone's head who has been dead 500 years. It is cheap and
> > > shabby and they would do well to take a leaf from the likes of
> > > Annette Carson and Bertram Fields who thoroughly research their
> > > subject. Why are people fooled by these "historian" I dont know....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard liveth yet
> >
>

P.S.

this doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but the thing that ultimately got me was when he described psychologists' "science" in quotes. That's right, quotes. As in "The psychologist is the new priest, and his 'science' the new religion." As someone currently buried up to my neck in data and statistical equations and checking on validity and reliability issues etc etc, I didn't exactly appreciate the historian-attempting-to-be-Frasier-Crane telling me that MY field wasn't a science. Maybe his made-up psychology isn't science, but mine tries very hard to be, thankyouverymuch.

Also, I think it's ironic that he gets mad at psychology's "science" and then uses handwriting comparisons to connect Elizabeth of York and Henry VIII? Who's using "science" now, Mr. Starkey?

Ok you guys, I'll get off my soap box, I promise.

--- In , "siameseayesha" <siameseayesha@...> wrote: <snipped>
>
> > Plus, there was (stupidly) an interview with Starkey in the back of the Elizabeth book where he came off as a complete pompous jackass. I really had to wonder why the publishers were willing to put it in the back, unless he angered someone at the company and they wanted to get back at him.
>

I'm not sure whether Dr Starkey is a pompous jackass in reality, but he certainly does a good impression of one.

Brian W

Hi Chums

<Also, I think it's ironic that he gets mad at psychology's "science"
and then uses handwriting comparisons to connect Elizabeth of York and
Henry VIII? Who's using "science" now, Mr. Starkey?>

Welcome to the group, siameseayesha - I for one thoroughly enjoyed your rant about Dear David!  :-)

One of the funniest things I've seen on TV is Starkey's performance during the Channel 4  'R3 Trial' programme (back in the 80s).  There he was in the witness box, all pompous, conceited and arrogant, as usual - only to be comprehensively demolished by the defence brief!  Marvellous!!!! 

Regards, Lorraine

Eileen wrote:
> > > In an article in the Times, Starkey, who is
> > > updating his biography on Henry Vlll (I must
> > > buy it....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting
> > > is similar to that of his mother's (although only
> > > a fragment of Elizabeth's handriting survives) this
> > > proves that, 'although it was unheard of at the time
> > > '...Henry's mother tutored him "both to read and
> > > as we can now see from the handwriting to write too

Ann:
Couldn't someone perhaps deduce that

1) the same writing tutor taught both Elizabeth and her siblings and also Elizabeth's children?

2) Maybe the two persons who taught Elizabeth and Henry learned from the same source or at the same school.

L.P.H.,

Ann

So who actually watched yesterday (C4, 21:00 BST)?

- In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> > > > In an article in the Times, Starkey, who is
> > > > updating his biography on Henry Vlll (I must
> > > > buy it....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting
> > > > is similar to that of his mother's (although only
> > > > a fragment of Elizabeth's handriting survives) this
> > > > proves that, 'although it was unheard of at the time
> > > > '...Henry's mother tutored him "both to read and
> > > > as we can now see from the handwriting to write too
>
> Ann:
> Couldn't someone perhaps deduce that
>
> 1) the same writing tutor taught both Elizabeth and her siblings and also Elizabeth's children?
>
> 2) Maybe the two persons who taught Elizabeth and Henry learned from the same source or at the same school.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> So who actually watched yesterday (C4, 21:00 BST)?

Stephen

Pass!

Eileen
>
> - In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > In an article in the Times, Starkey, who is
> > > > > updating his biography on Henry Vlll (I must
> > > > > buy it....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting
> > > > > is similar to that of his mother's (although only
> > > > > a fragment of Elizabeth's handriting survives) this
> > > > > proves that, 'although it was unheard of at the time
> > > > > '...Henry's mother tutored him "both to read and
> > > > > as we can now see from the handwriting to write too
> >
> > Ann:
> > Couldn't someone perhaps deduce that
> >
> > 1) the same writing tutor taught both Elizabeth and her siblings and also Elizabeth's children?
> >
> > 2) Maybe the two persons who taught Elizabeth and Henry learned from the same source or at the same school.
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> >
>

--- On Tue, 7/4/09, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:


From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Elizabeth and Henry handwriting
To:
Date: Tuesday, 7 April, 2009, 9:45 PM

 
* new poster alert *
 
I watched. I have to say that I was coughing and spluttering at some of the 'facts' Starkey imparted with such authority. And some of his leaps to conclusions made me blink and, I have to admit, swear on a couple of occasions.
 
I really do think that historians on television have a duty to say that certain facts are disputed and that they come to things with an agenda.
 
I also resented his remarks in the Radio Times about the ' feminisation' of history. I mean, just....What? - Like he doesn't have an axe to grind.
 
 

 




So who actually watched yesterday (C4, 21:00 BST)?

- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Ann Sharp" <axsc@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> > > > In an article in the Times, Starkey, who is
> > > > updating his biography on Henry Vlll (I must
> > > > buy it....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting
> > > > is similar to that of his mother's (although only
> > > > a fragment of Elizabeth's handriting survives) this
> > > > proves that, 'although it was unheard of at the time
> > > > '...Henry's mother tutored him "both to read and
> > > > as we can now see from the handwriting to write too
>
> Ann:
> Couldn't someone perhaps deduce that
>
> 1) the same writing tutor taught both Elizabeth and her siblings and also Elizabeth's children?
>
> 2) Maybe the two persons who taught Elizabeth and Henry learned from the same source or at the same school.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>

Whilst I have to defend the possibility of any writer making the
occasional slip that isn't picked up (to err is human ...) nevertheless this
is more than a slip because not only is Eleanor described as Butler's
daughter but also apparently as co-owner of the Sudeley holdings that were
removed by Edward IV in February 1469 and given to Richard in the following
November. The cherry on top is that Eleanor had already died, of course, on
30 June 1468.
Annette Carson

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Whilst I have to defend the possibility of any writer making the
> occasional slip that isn't picked up (to err is human ...)

Of course. Not that I give a toss what anyone thinks of Henry but history is history and for someone like Starkey to twist fact/get it badly wrong just to make a fast buck is wrong and deplorable. The sad truth is that of the thousands of people who did watch this programme (but have never actually read a history book)there will be many amongst them who will believe what they are told (in the programme) because Starkey is a well known name so therefore they will trust what he says.

I can remember many years ago have an argument with someone who insisted that Elizabeth lst had met up with Mary Queen of Scots...why? because it was thus portrayed in a film at the time (the one with Vanessa Redgrave playing Mary). Why film makers have to twiddle around with the known facts I do not know. History is exciting as it is. But I think for someone who says he is a historian to consistently come out with crap is unforgivable. I wish Starkey would just do a disappearing act along with that other miserable excuse of a historian Hicks. If they lived in the 21st century they could be sued for defamation of character, especially Hicks. Maybe they would take a bit more care if that was the case. Hicks especially is a lying coward who attacks people unable to defend themselves. A good thing this Society is here to stick up for Richard......

Ummmm has anyone read Secret History?????
Eileen





nevertheless this
> is more than a slip because not only is Eleanor described as Butler's
> daughter but also apparently as co-owner of the Sudeley holdings that were
> removed by Edward IV in February 1469 and given to Richard in the following
> November. The cherry on top is that Eleanor had already died, of course, on
> 30 June 1468.
> Annette Carson
>
>
>
>

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
>
> I can remember many years ago have an argument with someone who insisted that Elizabeth lst had met up with Mary Queen of Scots...why? because it was thus portrayed in a film at the time (the one with Vanessa Redgrave playing Mary). Why film makers have to twiddle around with the known facts I do not know.



Especially when the truth is, I believe, more interesting -- the queens who never met in life are spending eternity lying side by side, under one monument.


Dean and Chapter of Westminster

The tomb of Mary and Elizabeth at Westminster Abbey.The Latin translates: "Partners both in throne and grave, here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection."

(Nice collection of portraits of Elizabeth I at this site, by the way: http://tudorhistory.org/elizabeth/gallery3.html)

Katy

Hi Eileen, Katy & All
 
<I can remember many years ago have an argument with someone who insisted that Elizabeth lst had met up with Mary Queen of Scots...why? because it was thus portrayed in a film at the time (the one with Vanessa Redgrave playing Mary). Why film makers have to twiddle around with the known facts I do not know>.

IIRC the two were also depicted as having met in the fairly recent production with Helen Mirren in the E1 role!  Grrrr....
 
I can't remember too much about the first David Starkey TV prog on H8, having thrown my shoes at the TV when he wittered on about Wicked King Richard!  My BP went sky-high when he talked of Margaret Beaufort's Book of Hours, remembering as I did that
*Richard's* Book of Hours ended up in her possession post-Bosworth, and so might have been the one he was talking about.  
 
When he was making the very thin claim that Young Henry was schooled by his mother, Starkey's main evidence came from the book where Eliz of York wrote her name and 'the kyng's daughter' alongside, which IIRC was also owned by her Uncle Richard (can't recall the exact volume without looking it up and I'm away from my files just now, but I think it was one of the Romances).  To be honest, I was running out of missiles to hurl at the screen by the time the programme finished! ;-(
 
Regards, Lorraine
 
 
Regards, Lorraine









---> I can remember many years ago have an argument with someone who insisted that Elizabeth lst had met up with Mary Queen of Scots...why? because it was thus portrayed in a film at the time (the one with Vanessa Redgrave playing Mary). Why film makers have to twiddle around with the known facts I do not know.

Especially when the truth is, I believe, more interesting -- the queens who never met in life are spending eternity lying side by side, under one monument.


Dean and Chapter of Westminster

The tomb of Mary and Elizabeth at Westminster Abbey.The Latin translates: "Partners both in throne and grave, here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection. "

(Nice collection of portraits of Elizabeth I at this site, by the way: http://tudorhistory .org/elizabeth/ gallery3. html)

Katy

At 20:51 09/04/2009, Lorraine wrote:
><I can remember many years ago have an argument with someone who
>insisted that Elizabeth lst had met up with Mary Queen of
>Scots...why? because it was thus portrayed in a film at the time
>(the one with Vanessa Redgrave playing Mary). Why film makers have
>to twiddle around with the known facts I do not know>.
>
>IIRC the two were also depicted as having met in the fairly recent
>production with Helen Mirren in the E1 role! Grrrr....

Blame Schiller, who wrote the play on which Donizetti's opera was
based. He is as popular a playwright in Germany as Shakespeare is
here, and his history is not ... entirely reliable.

I'd lambast a modern historian who pretended they had met, but it's a
dramatic device that has had legs for a couple of hundred years
(can't remember Schiller's exact dates).


Best wishes
Christine

Katy,

Are you sure it isn't Elizabeth's real half-sister, Mary the half-Spaniard with the Spanish husband?

Stephen.

----- Original Message -----
From: l pickering
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:51 PM
Subject: Elizabeth and Henry handwriting





Hi Eileen, Katy & All

<I can remember many years ago have an argument with someone who insisted that Elizabeth lst had met up with Mary Queen of Scots...why? because it was thus portrayed in a film at the time (the one with Vanessa Redgrave playing Mary). Why film makers have to twiddle around with the known facts I do not know>.

IIRC the two were also depicted as having met in the fairly recent production with Helen Mirren in the E1 role! Grrrr....

I can't remember too much about the first David Starkey TV prog on H8, having thrown my shoes at the TV when he wittered on about Wicked King Richard! My BP went sky-high when he talked of Margaret Beaufort's Book of Hours, remembering as I did that
*Richard's* Book of Hours ended up in her possession post-Bosworth, and so might have been the one he was talking about.

When he was making the very thin claim that Young Henry was schooled by his mother, Starkey's main evidence came from the book where Eliz of York wrote her name and 'the kyng's daughter' alongside, which IIRC was also owned by her Uncle Richard (can't recall the exact volume without looking it up and I'm away from my files just now, but I think it was one of the Romances). To be honest, I was running out of missiles to hurl at the screen by the time the programme finished! ;-(

Regards, Lorraine


Regards, Lorraine

---> I can remember many years ago have an argument with someone who insisted that Elizabeth lst had met up with Mary Queen of Scots...why? because it was thus portrayed in a film at the time (the one with Vanessa Redgrave playing Mary). Why film makers have to twiddle around with the known facts I do not know.

Especially when the truth is, I believe, more interesting -- the queens who never met in life are spending eternity lying side by side, under one monument.

Dean and Chapter of Westminster

The tomb of Mary and Elizabeth at Westminster Abbey.The Latin translates: "Partners both in throne and grave, here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection. "

(Nice collection of portraits of Elizabeth I at this site, by the way: http://tudorhistory .org/elizabeth/ gallery3. html)

Katy

--- In , l pickering <lpickering2@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen, Katy & All
>  
> <
> I can't remember too much about the first David Starkey TV prog on H8, having thrown my shoes at the TV when he wittered on about Wicked King Richard!  My BP went sky-high when he talked of Margaret Beaufort's Book of Hours, remembering as I did that
> *Richard's* Book of Hours ended up in her possession post-Bosworth, and so might have been the one he was talking about.  

OMG I never knew this....this is bad. Casting Starkey aside for the moment....can you imagine the fun mother and son had going through Richard's very own possessions and keeping the very best. Like bloody vultures. My blood boils at the very thought of it...As for Starkey....I hate him, I absolutely hate him...rant rant rant!!

Feeling a little better now..:0)
Eileen

>  
> When he was making the very thin claim that Young Henry was schooled by his mother, Starkey's main evidence came from the book where Eliz of York wrote her name and 'the kyng's daughter' alongside, which IIRC was also owned by her Uncle Richard (can't recall the exact volume without looking it up and I'm away from my files just now, but I think it was one of the Romances).  To be honest, I was running out of missiles to hurl at the screen by the time the programme finished! ;-(
>  
> Regards, Lorraine
>  
>  
> Regards, Lorraine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---> I can remember many years ago have an argument with someone who insisted that Elizabeth lst had met up with Mary Queen of Scots...why? because it was thus portrayed in a film at the time (the one with Vanessa Redgrave playing Mary). Why film makers have to twiddle around with the known facts I do not know.
>
> Especially when the truth is, I believe, more interesting -- the queens who never met in life are spending eternity lying side by side, under one monument.
>
>
> Dean and Chapter of Westminster
>
> The tomb of Mary and Elizabeth at Westminster Abbey.The Latin translates: "Partners both in throne and grave, here rest we two sisters, Elizabeth and Mary, in the hope of one resurrection. "
>
> (Nice collection of portraits of Elizabeth I at this site, by the way: http://tudorhistory .org/elizabeth/ gallery3. html)
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Katy,
>
> Are you sure it isn't Elizabeth's real half-sister, Mary the half-Spaniard with the Spanish husband?


Nope. It's Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots. She was originally buried elsewhere, then moved to Westminster Abbey.

Katy

--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Katy,
> >
> > Are you sure it isn't Elizabeth's real half-sister, Mary the half-Spaniard with the Spanish husband?
>
>
> Nope. It's Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots. She was originally buried elsewhere, then moved to Westminster Abbey.
>
> Katy

Steven's correct. Mary Queen of Scots has her own, very large and beautiful tomb, not far from Elizabeth's. King James had it made for his mother. The sister Elizabeth shares her tomb with is 'bloody' Mary, Katherine of Aragon's daughter.

Eileen
>

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Katy,
> > >
> > > Are you sure it isn't Elizabeth's real half-sister, Mary the half-Spaniard with the Spanish husband?
> >
> >
> > Nope. It's Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots. She was originally buried elsewhere, then moved to Westminster Abbey.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Steven's correct. Mary Queen of Scots has her own, very large and beautiful tomb, not far from Elizabeth's. King James had it made for his mother. The sister Elizabeth shares her tomb with is 'bloody' Mary, Katherine of Aragon's daughter.



On further research, you and Steven are correct. I jumped a conclusion there. The Tudor sister-queens are the ones under one monument, and MQofS is nearby.

Sorry about that.

Katy

Hi Christine & All

<Blame Schiller, who wrote the play on which Donizetti's opera was

based. He is as popular a playwright in Germany as Shakespeare is

here, and his history is not ... entirely reliable. I'd lambast a modern historian who pretended they had met, but it's a dramatic device that has had legs for a couple of hundred years (can't remember Schiller's exact dates).>


Many thanks for the info on Schiller!  I've just looked him up on Wikipedia (more for speed than for accuracy) and his dates are 1759  1805.  I feel a bit mollified now that I know its all Schiller's fault and not just modern dramatists and researchers being lazy <vbg>.  Here's a bit of what was said on Wiki about his plot summary [source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stuart_(play)]:

"Mary Stuart is nominally imprisoned in England for the murder of her husband, but the real reason is her claim to the throne of England as rightful heir. While Mary's cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, is hesitant about signing her death sentence, Mary is hoping for a reprieve. After she finds out that the nephew of her custodian is on her side, she entrusts her life to Mortimer, who is supposed to give the Earl of Leicester a letter from Mary in which she asks him for help. This is a delicate situation because Leicester seems to be a supporter of Queen Elizabeth.

After numerous requests, Mary is finally granted the opportunity to meet Queen Elizabeth (something that, in reality, never happened). This meeting ends in an acrimonious argument because of Mary's unwillingness to submit entirely to Elizabeth's will. It now seems as though there is no longer hope for a successful reprieve.

Complicating matters further, Mortimer tries to forcibly free Mary from prison, but when his attempt fails he commits suicide.
Finally, Queen Elizabeth allows herself to be persuaded to sign Mary's death sentence. Elizabeth insists that the only reason for signing the death decree is the pressure from her people to do so.

She hands the signed paper to her undersecretary Davison without any clear instructions on what he is supposed to do with it. In so doing, she transfers this burden of responsibility to him, certainly realizing that he will hand over the decree to Lord Burleigh, guaranteeing Mary's death.  Burleigh demands the signed document from Davidson, who - despite his uncertainty - eventually hands it to him. Mary is executed as a result".

Regards, Lorraine

Hi All

Eileen, re:  my mention of Margaret Beaufort's ownership of Richard's Book of Hours, you had replied:



<OMG I never knew this....this is bad. Casting Starkey aside for
the moment....can you imagine the fun mother and son had going through
Richard's very own possessions and keeping the very best. Like bloody
vultures. My blood boils at the very thought of it...>
I was lucky enough to see Richard's Hours on display at the 'Gothic: Art for England' exhibition at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London with another UK R3 Soc. member Jan Scott, back in 2003.   Whilst the whole exhibition boggled the mind,  knowing the back-story to that little, almost nondescript, item made it an especially poignant highlight, I have to say.  
(Tony Pollard has in the past made an interesting observation on how plain and unadorned Richard's books are, which suggests that they were works which were genuinely read for pleasure and interest, rather than being library show pieces.  The fact that many of them contain notes and/or signatures relating to Richard's known close circle tends to support Pollard's assessment, which, I feel, reflects the kind of man Richard was in a positive light).


The Anne Sutton/ Livia Visser-Fuchs volume 'The Book of Hours of
Richard III' (Pub:  Alan Sutton, 1990) goes into some detail about its provenance. 
They suggest there's not much doubt that his Book of Hours will
have been part of the booty from Richard's tent after his death at
Bosworth.  Certainly Richard's tent hangings are documented as being on display
at the Stanley seat at Knowsley in the 1700s, for instance.  I did once contact
(nicely!) the present incumbent at Knowsley enquiring about the current
whereabouts of the hangings  - and got a fairly sniffy response, as I recall! ;-)


Eileen, that the treacherous Stanley brothers ransacked Richard's personal
quarters after Bosworth is something I don't like to think about too
much in case I give myself a nosebleed <vbg>, and I can't tell
you how enraged I get about the supposedly pious Beaufort woman's plotting and
scheming. Grrrr!

I know it's completely ridiculous to hate someone long-dead, but I have a particular contempt for this individual, despite her supposed kindness to young Cecily of York (another of my particular favourites).   I can't even feel any real sympathy that Old Ma Beaufort was to outlive her beloved boy - and I would do for virtually another other human being in that position.  And I honestly had to have a lie-down when I read Cecily Neville's Will and saw that she actually left items (a prayer book, plus silverware, IIRC) to this woman and her wretched son!!!  Can you imagine - and after what they had done!!!???? 

Margaret Beaufort definitely took possession of Richard's Book of Hours for a time - since she wrote in it [shakes fist at the screen!], and she is even suspected of having made some erasures to minor references to Richard which were subsequently rediscovered after the Hours had been subjected to examination techniques with (UV?)  light.  (Interestingly, references to Richard weren't only erased in this book, but in several other volumes we know he owned).

Margaret subsequently gave the book to an unknown person who she asks to pray for her [yeah, right!] 'in the honour of God and St Edmund'.  (It has been suggested that the recipient may have been Elizabeth, Lady Scrope & Upsall, the daughter of John Neville (Kingmaker's brother) who recorded in her Will of 1514 a gift of a 'primer and psalter' from Margaret Beaufort, but as this particular item is neither a primer nor a psalter, it rather argues against it). 

Anne & Livia spend some time deconstructing the personal prayers in the
volume (which give an interesting insight into Richard's piety overall), but
they also point out that of the dozen or so books we think he owned, only 4 can
be called 'devotional' works, the rest are either historical or
otherwise 'informative' volumes.

Others having to do with this most personal of items (Richard was not
the original owner of the Book of Hours, BTW, but the original owner remains unknown) include a 'Thomas
Harwood' who, it's noted in the Hours' Calendar (where Richard's date
& place of birth and regnal title is also recorded), "happened to
die" on 28 March 1542.  An 'AF' who died 26 Aug 1548,  'Henry Lynghe
gent.' and 'Ysabel Bradfort' are also mentioned on notes bound within
the Hours. 

Some of the info above may have been updated since I made my original notes, but, AFAIK, none of these other people have been identified as
having anything to do with R3 or MB.
Regards, Lorraine

--- In , l pickering <lpickering2@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The Anne Sutton/ Livia Visser-Fuchs volume 'The Book of Hours of
> Richard III' (Pub:  Alan Sutton, 1990) goes into some detail about its provenance. 
> They suggest there's not much doubt that his Book of Hours will
> have been part of the booty from Richard's tent after his death at
> Bosworth.  Certainly Richard's tent hangings are documented as being on display
> at the Stanley seat at Knowsley in the 1700s, for instance. 
I
> Eileen, that the treacherous Stanley brothers ransacked Richard's personal
> quarters after Bosworth is something I don't like to think about too
> much in case I give myself a nosebleed <vbg>

Too painful to think about....

Lorraine:
  And I honestly had to have a lie-down when I read Cecily Neville's Will and saw that she actually left items (a prayer book, plus silverware, IIRC) to this woman and her wretched son!!!  Can you imagine - and after what they had done!!!???? 

Now this is really hard to understand.....Here it is
>
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/neville.htm

I have mentioned this before.....Someone suggested (it may have been Marie) that perhaps Cecily was hoping that her servants/retainers would be treated kindly. I dont know....Something must have gone on. Afterall she was at one time heavily involved in plotting against Tudor (Lambert Simnel plot) so she must have, at one time, hoped for him (Tudor) to get his comeuppance. Of course Elizabeth of York was her granddaughter. Then again she was perfectly willing at one time to have her grandchildren from Edward bastardised. I dont know ...so many mysteries.....

> Margaret Beaufort definitely took possession of Richard's Book of Hours for a time -

In my mind, Margaret Beaufort and Morton were the main reasons Richard lost his throne and his life.
Eileen




since she wrote in it [shakes fist at the screen!], and she is even suspected of having made some erasures to minor references to Richard which were subsequently rediscovered after the Hours had been subjected to examination techniques with (UV?)  light.  (Interestingly, references to Richard weren't only erased in this book, but in several other volumes we know he owned).
>
> Margaret subsequently gave the book to an unknown person who she asks to pray for her [yeah, right!] 'in the honour of God and St Edmund'.  (It has been suggested that the recipient may have been Elizabeth, Lady Scrope & Upsall, the daughter of John Neville (Kingmaker's brother) who recorded in her Will of 1514 a gift of a 'primer and psalter' from Margaret Beaufort, but as this particular item is neither a primer nor a psalter, it rather argues against it). 
>
> Anne & Livia spend some time deconstructing the personal prayers in the
> volume (which give an interesting insight into Richard's piety overall), but
> they also point out that of the dozen or so books we think he owned, only 4 can
> be called 'devotional' works, the rest are either historical or
> otherwise 'informative' volumes.
>
> Others having to do with this most personal of items (Richard was not
> the original owner of the Book of Hours, BTW, but the original owner remains unknown) include a 'Thomas
> Harwood' who, it's noted in the Hours' Calendar (where Richard's date
> & place of birth and regnal title is also recorded), "happened to
> die" on 28 March 1542.  An 'AF' who died 26 Aug 1548,  'Henry Lynghe
> gent.' and 'Ysabel Bradfort' are also mentioned on notes bound within
> the Hours. 
>
> Some of the info above may have been updated since I made my original notes, but, AFAIK, none of these other people have been identified as
> having anything to do with R3 or MB.
> Regards, Lorraine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for the link to the transcript of Cecily's Will, Eileen. 

The 360 degree accommodations both Cecily and Elizabeth Wydeville clearly made are extremely interesting, if somewhat baffling.  Concern for their retainers etc. may well have been part of it, the 'noblesse oblige' aspect would arguably be as important for them as it was for their menfolk and yes, as Cecily's grand-daughter was Queen,  Cecily may well have been thinking of how life could go for Eliz of York after Cecily's death.  Whilst it is true that EoY and H7 sought to comfort each other on their son Arthur's death, it's fairly clear from a number of sources that Margaret Beaufort exerted very strong influence at Court.

Earlier tonight I caught the tail end repeat of Starkey's first programme on H8 describes a Spanish diplomat noticing that the young Henry seemed fairly cowed by both his father and Grandmother when in their presence. 

By the by, Starkey also mentions how the young Henry hung out with Yorkist champions at tiltyards, who, he reckons all seemingly had good warrior skills but by then seemed content to confine their sabre rattling for ceremonial jousting, rather than overthrowing the Tudor regime.  Apparently these unnamed Yorkist warriors [various de la Poles perhaps?] acknowledged Henry's mother's influence on him and they regarded the young man 'as one of them' (a Yorkist, in other words) .  Starkey describes H7 as 'viscerally Lancastrian'.

Grrr - it still makes me want to shake Cecily, though!  ;-)

Regards, Lorraine