Hipshon

In David Hipshon's new book "Richard III and the Death of Chivalry"
the writer compares Richard with his father in three ways. I'm not
sure I'd agree. What do others think?
[I realise the book isn't out in the States yet, so won't spoil
things with the big idea contained herein. Just though this point
worth a discussion.]

Both Richard and York his father were impatient with opposition; self
righteous; had the inability to calculate the self interest of the
leading magnates.

I have particular trouble with the second.
Paul


Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> In David Hipshon's new book "Richard III and the Death of Chivalry"
> the writer compares Richard with his father in three ways. I'm not
> sure I'd agree. What do others think?
> [I realise the book isn't out in the States yet, so won't spoil
> things with the big idea contained herein. Just though this point
> worth a discussion.]
>
> Both Richard and York his father were impatient with opposition; self
> righteous; had the inability to calculate the self interest of the
> leading magnates.
>
> I have particular trouble with the second.
> Paul



Forensic psychoanalysis across the centuries is risky, but I think I can see evidence of those traits in what we know of Richard and his father.

Rather than "self-righteous", though, I would say that it's easy to see why each man might feel frustration and some resentment that his abilities and rightful position were under-appreciated and that outside forces and circumstances were preventing him from achieving all that he could have.

Katy
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> In David Hipshon's new book "Richard III and the Death of Chivalry"
> the writer compares Richard with his father in three ways. I'm not
> sure I'd agree. What do others think?
> [I realise the book isn't out in the States yet, so won't spoil
> things with the big idea contained herein. Just though this point
> worth a discussion.]
>
> Both Richard and York his father were impatient with opposition; self
> righteous; had the inability to calculate the self interest of the
> leading magnates.
>
> I have particular trouble with the second.


I'd amend the prejudicial language slightly and put it this way:

1. Guilty as charged, but with good reason.
2. They were both men with a particular set of values that did not chime with your typical late medieval nobleman. To most of these guys 'corruption' meant that the other side had all the pies. Whereas I think the two Richards genuinely wanted a less corrupt society. (Albeit with considerable power for themselves therein.)Some people will call that 'self-righteous', others 'politically naive'.
3. Broadly agree, for the reason above. I recently read that York ran into trouble with his fellow peers because he was seen as a mouthpiece for 'popular discontent'. In other words he had too much sympathy with the lower orders, and was rocking the establishment boat.

Brian W



> Paul
>
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good one Brian.
On point 2 I'd agree with you, considering that both men still
believed in the old order of Chivalry and personal loyalty, as well
as having a general concern for the poor. Though the Duke came late
to that I think, and he seriously misjudged how essential appeasing
the middle class, if not the lower class as well, was in gaining a
throne, something Edward did not. By winning London, mainly the
economic classes, Edward won the crown. Richard failed perhaps by not
realising how essential winning over the south and these self same
classes was, as Edward had done, replacing them after the 83
rebellion by those mainly from the north, who had exhibited the same
sense of old style values of loyalty and service that he valued.
On point one I imagine Richard always screaming inside his head 'Why
don't you get this?' a lot of the time in pure frustration! and on
point three he of course thought that bringing the likes of the
Stanleys and Northumberland into his fold would make them forget the
land grabbing ambitions they held in the past. The former in
particular had revenge simmering along with ambition though, and
Richard unfortunately never allowed himself to see this.
Paul



On 2 Apr 2009, at 19:16, Brian Wainwright wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> In David Hipshon's new book "Richard III and the Death of Chivalry"
>> the writer compares Richard with his father in three ways. I'm not
>> sure I'd agree. What do others think?
>> [I realise the book isn't out in the States yet, so won't spoil
>> things with the big idea contained herein. Just though this point
>> worth a discussion.]
>>
>> Both Richard and York his father were impatient with opposition; self
>> righteous; had the inability to calculate the self interest of the
>> leading magnates.
>>
>> I have particular trouble with the second.
>
>
> I'd amend the prejudicial language slightly and put it this way:
>
> 1. Guilty as charged, but with good reason.
> 2. They were both men with a particular set of values that did not
> chime with your typical late medieval nobleman. To most of these
> guys 'corruption' meant that the other side had all the pies.
> Whereas I think the two Richards genuinely wanted a less corrupt
> society. (Albeit with considerable power for themselves therein.)
> Some people will call that 'self-righteous', others 'politically
> naive'.
> 3. Broadly agree, for the reason above. I recently read that York
> ran into trouble with his fellow peers because he was seen as a
> mouthpiece for 'popular discontent'. In other words he had too much
> sympathy with the lower orders, and was rocking the establishment
> boat.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Richard liveth yet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

After my recommendation of David Hipshon's book and the admiration
for Richard he shows through his writing, I now have to take issue
with him on two major points.

The pre-contract he dismisses with "the argument was of course
pathetic" and he says there was no investigation into the matter,
ignoring all the research done by both Annette Carson and John
Ashdown-Hill, which is unforgivable.

He also suggests Shaa first preached the bastardy of Edward IV,
instigated by and made in the presence of Richard and Buckingham,
which was then rethought as Richard was living with his mother at
Barnards Castle. Right I can just imagine that! Hipshon does. "The
Duchess may have had a view of whether she committed the sin of
adultery while he husband's back was turned in 1442" "Perhaps she and
Richard discussed her grandchildren, playing in the gardens of the
Tower".

Oh yes, those bastards in the Tower again!!!!!

"The attempted rescue of the princes was thwarted, but it may have
sealed their fate. Once Richard had taken the throne they were as
good as dead in any case."

"By keeping them alive he was providing an incentive to their would
be rescuers, but by killing them he would be providing his enemies
with ammunition to use against him.
The princes would have to be killed and killed in secret" (why? no
explanation)

"propagating news of their deaths would have been a spectacular
public relations disaster" (why? again no explanation)

At the time of the rebellion Elizabeth Woodville "would not have
countenanced the scheme to marry Elizabeth her daughter to Henry
Tudor if she believed there was any hope her sons were alive"
Please see Annette Carson to explode that particular nonsense!

Oh wait a moment, you did have a quick look...

"Richard was far too noble to do such a barbaric thing, and those
that believe otherwise will burn in hell. This is a quasi-religious
phenomenon, a cult of adulation that brooks no heresy". Here a note
refers to Annette's book as an example of this!

"Henry inherited a boy locked up in the Tower, Edward of Warwick".
Well actually sir, Warwick was alive and at liberty at Sherriff
Hutton, along with Elizabeth of York.

"the evidence put forward to promulgate the theory they survived
Richard's reign is derisory at best and laughable for the most part".

"Richard seized the throne by killing 4 adults and 2 boys. Not a bad
body count set against the thousands killed during his brother's bid
for the throne"
"That Richard did not kill them is based on a thorough
misunderstanding of the medieval aristocratic mind". But not that a
man noted for his piety would have coldly murdered two boys who had
not actually done anything wrong.

Regarding Buckingham he says he had a "distant claim to the throne"!
Tudor "had a slightly stronger claim"!

Need I say more?
Perhaps he will go into these thorny issues a bit more widely, with
wider research, and more attention to details, in his forthcoming
biography of Richard. I damn well hope so!
In the meantime I throw the discussion open!
Paul

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> After my recommendation of David Hipshon's book and the admiration
> for Richard he shows through his writing, I now have to take issue
> with him on two major points.
>
> The pre-contract he dismisses with "the argument was of course
> pathetic" and he says there was no investigation into the matter,
> ignoring all the research done by both Annette Carson and John
> Ashdown-Hill, which is unforgivable.
>

I can never understand why the possibility of Edward's marriage to Eleanor is such a stretch for some folks. Edward had form! His marriage to Elizabeth was in *exactly* the same format as that allegedly conducted with Eleanor, irregular and without banns. The difference was that Edward announced (eventually) his marriage to Elizabeth. (My guess is she claimed to be pregnant.)

We actually have no proof that Edward married Elizabeth! There were no certificates for medieval weddings, not even the regular ones. Who were the witnesses? Anyone impartial? No. The 'proof' is Edward's announcement.

Even if Edward never even heard of Eleanor, he was extremely ill-advised to marry Elizabeth in this fashion. And that is the inner Sir Humphrey Appleton speaking. In English common law the children of irregular marriages were not eligible to inherit titles or land. Fact! (See Statute of Merton, reign of Edward I). That is why Edward's grandfather went to the trouble of obtaining a papal dispensation for his irregular marriage to Anne Mortimer, despite the fact that Richard of Conisbrough was as poor as a church mouse and must have really struggled to pay for it.

I honestly don't know what Edward was thinking about, but he probably didn't expect to die at 41 with his son under age.

Brian W

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Oh yes, those bastards in the Tower again!!!!!
>
> "The attempted rescue of the princes was thwarted, but it may have
> sealed their fate. Once Richard had taken the throne they were as
> good as dead in any case."
>
> "By keeping them alive he was providing an incentive to their would
> be rescuers, but by killing them he would be providing his enemies
> with ammunition to use against him.
> The princes would have to be killed and killed in secret" (why? no
> explanation)
>
> "propagating news of their deaths would have been a spectacular
> public relations disaster" (why? again no explanation)



Parliament had decided that Richard was the rightful king well before the boys disappeared, so there was nothing for him to gain by the deaths of the two sons of Edward IV. They were not his rivals for the crown, since they had been judged illegitimate.

But if Richard had wanted to be rid of the boys, the most expedient course would have been to have them poisoned or suffocated, display their unblemished bodies, give them a fine funeral, and be done with them forever.

Having them disappear was the worst thing that could happen, because it left the door open for boys, then men, claiming to be the missing Planagenet scion to come forth for decades, which is what happened.

Whether one believes that Richard III was responsible for their deaths or not, one thing is pretty clear -- if it was important for them to be dead, it was still more important for them to be known to be dead.

Katy

Katy said "if it was important for them to be dead, it was still more
important for them to be known to be dead."
My feelings exactly Katy. It gained Richard nothing to have
speculation and rumour.
Paul


On 1 May 2009, at 20:34, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Oh yes, those bastards in the Tower again!!!!!
>>
>> "The attempted rescue of the princes was thwarted, but it may have
>> sealed their fate. Once Richard had taken the throne they were as
>> good as dead in any case."
>>
>> "By keeping them alive he was providing an incentive to their would
>> be rescuers, but by killing them he would be providing his enemies
>> with ammunition to use against him.
>> The princes would have to be killed and killed in secret" (why? no
>> explanation)
>>
>> "propagating news of their deaths would have been a spectacular
>> public relations disaster" (why? again no explanation)
>
>
>
> Parliament had decided that Richard was the rightful king well
> before the boys disappeared, so there was nothing for him to gain
> by the deaths of the two sons of Edward IV. They were not his
> rivals for the crown, since they had been judged illegitimate.
>
> But if Richard had wanted to be rid of the boys, the most expedient
> course would have been to have them poisoned or suffocated, display
> their unblemished bodies, give them a fine funeral, and be done
> with them forever.
>
> Having them disappear was the worst thing that could happen,
> because it left the door open for boys, then men, claiming to be
> the missing Planagenet scion to come forth for decades, which is
> what happened.
>
> Whether one believes that Richard III was responsible for their
> deaths or not, one thing is pretty clear -- if it was important for
> them to be dead, it was still more important for them to be known
> to be dead.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Parliament had decided that Richard was the rightful king well before the boys disappeared, so there was nothing for him to gain by the deaths of the two sons of Edward IV. They were not his rivals for the crown, since they had been judged illegitimate.

Richard may not have had anything to gain from their deaths but the Tudor camp definitely did. Margaret Beaufort and Morton laboured long and hard to get Henry on the throne. They would have known their plans would had come to nothing whilst the boys were alive. They would not have survived long after Bosworth. Unless maybe Margaret would have been content with her son marrying Elizabeth and being allowed to return to England. She and la Woodville had agreed that their son and daugther would get married. Now this is something that really gets me wondering. If Woodville had known her sons were alive and kicking why would she have ever agreed to her daughter marrying Henry? Unless of course she knew she would renege on the deal once she had got Richard off the throne and one of her sons back on it. Oh I dunno .....more questions than answers as per usual..

>
> But if Richard had wanted to be rid of the boys, the most expedient course would have been to have them poisoned or suffocated, display their unblemished bodies, give them a fine funeral, and be done with them forever.
>
> Having them disappear was the worst thing that could happen, because it left the door open for boys, then men, claiming to be the missing Planagenet scion to come forth for decades, which is what happened.
>
> Whether one believes that Richard III was responsible for their deaths or not, one thing is pretty clear -- if it was important for them to be dead, it was still more important for them to be known to be dead.
>
> Katy
>

On 1 May 2009, at 22:18, eileen wrote:

> She and la Woodville had agreed that their son and daugther
> would get married.

Katy
Annette Carson has put this into doubt, great doubt. Read her chapter
on this and you will see that the timeline for a rapprochement
between MB and EW is completely wrong, and I tend to agree with her.
Doesn't make any sense at all. It could have been simply announced by
MB and Henry and propaganda, without any involvement or input from
the lady and her daughter in guarded sanctuary. How did MB get into
Westminster past the guards, when she was already under suspicion for
her earlier involvement in the Hastings plot?
Paul



Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 May 2009, at 22:18, eileen wrote:
>
> > She and la Woodville had agreed that their son and daugther
> > would get married.
>
> Katy
> Annette Carson has put this into doubt, great doubt. Read her chapter
> on this and you will see that the timeline for a rapprochement
> between MB and EW is completely wrong, and I tend to agree with her.
> Doesn't make any sense at all. It could have been simply announced by
> MB and Henry and propaganda, without any involvement or input from
> the lady and her daughter in guarded sanctuary. How did MB get into
> Westminster past the guards, when she was already under suspicion for
> her earlier involvement in the Hastings plot?
> Paul


Yipe -- How did my name get on this? It's not my idea or viewpoint.

Katy

Should have been Eileen, sorry, your name was quoted at the top of
the post.
Your reaction is a bit ott though. What is not your viewpoint?
Eileen's comments or my response? Mine I think an interesting idea,
worth at least considering.
Paul


On 2 May 2009, at 14:22, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1 May 2009, at 22:18, eileen wrote:
>>
>>> She and la Woodville had agreed that their son and daugther
>>> would get married.
>>
>> Katy
>> Annette Carson has put this into doubt, great doubt. Read her chapter
>> on this and you will see that the timeline for a rapprochement
>> between MB and EW is completely wrong, and I tend to agree with her.
>> Doesn't make any sense at all. It could have been simply announced by
>> MB and Henry and propaganda, without any involvement or input from
>> the lady and her daughter in guarded sanctuary. How did MB get into
>> Westminster past the guards, when she was already under suspicion for
>> her earlier involvement in the Hastings plot?
>> Paul
>
>
> Yipe -- How did my name get on this? It's not my idea or viewpoint.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 May 2009, at 22:18, eileen wrote:
>
> > She and la Woodville had agreed that their son and daugther
> > would get married. eileen
>
>
> Annette Carson has put this into doubt, great doubt. Read her chapter
> on this and you will see that the timeline for a rapprochement
> between MB and EW is completely wrong, and I tend to agree with her.
> Doesn't make any sense at all. Paul

You are absolutely right Paul....it doesnt make sense. And as I said I have always wondered about this traditionalists theory (like a lot of them).
I have reread the chapter you refer to (What a good book this is, the tops)...and refreshed my memory on what Annette has written I must say I galloped through it the first time and want to reread it again soon at a slower pace. Annette bends over backwards in "an attempt to give the tradionalists every leeway" and still manages to tear their theories into tiny pieces. She's damn good. Even my wondering did Woodville consent to the marriage with the idea in mind that Henry would be rewarded with Elizabeth's hand in marriage (and allow him to return to England from his long exile.....she missed her baby) once he had removed Richard from the throne and reinstated her son (Annette mentions this theory too) does not stand up when you take into consideration the 'timeline'..... Of course MB would not have been plotting along these lines. Why risk life and limb to remove Richard from the throne and replace him with another Plantagenet...
eileen





It could have been simply announced by
> MB and Henry and propaganda, without any involvement or input from
> the lady and her daughter in guarded sanctuary. How did MB get into
> Westminster past the guards, when she was already under suspicion for
> her earlier involvement in the Hastings plot?
> Paul
>
>
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Should have been Eileen, sorry, your name was quoted at the top of
> the post.
> Your reaction is a bit ott though. What is not your viewpoint?
> Eileen's comments or my response? Mine I think an interesting idea,
> worth at least considering.
> Paul


The viewpoint that Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville were match-making their children.

Yours is an interesting idea indeed.

Katy

does carson discuss how and why dr. lewis of caerleon could or could not have been used to communicate between mb and ew regarding the betrothal of elizabeth and henry.? dr. lewis was supposed to have been both mb and ew's physician. this is what gave him the ability to pass on secret messages.
 
henry is said to have vowed to marry one of e4's daughters, not specifically elizabeth at christmas 1483. does carson investigate the validity of this vow? or even that henry had to be pushed into keeping the vow.
 
thanks
 
roslyn
--- On Sat, 5/2/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Hipshon
To:
Received: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 6:48 AM









On 1 May 2009, at 22:18, eileen wrote:

> She and la Woodville had agreed that their son and daugther
> would get married.

Katy
Annette Carson has put this into doubt, great doubt. Read her chapter
on this and you will see that the timeline for a rapprochement
between MB and EW is completely wrong, and I tend to agree with her.
Doesn't make any sense at all. It could have been simply announced by
MB and Henry and propaganda, without any involvement or input from
the lady and her daughter in guarded sanctuary. How did MB get into
Westminster past the guards, when she was already under suspicion for
her earlier involvement in the Hastings plot?
Paul

Richard liveth yet

Briefly:-
in Annette's words...

> I would like to mention that historians, especially history
> professors, tend to need theories neatly tied up in boxes and
> characters nicely pigeonholed (and, dare I say it,
> psychoanalysed!). My suggestion is that the summer of 1483 was a
> time of flux with the main players constantly jockeying for
> position. The Woodvilles were looking at any option which would
> restore Edward V, and a tentative marriage negotiation with
> Margaret Beaufort was a good ploy if it secured - as they believed
> - the wealth and influence of her faction in support of this plan
> (the go-between being, IIRC, their mutual physician Dr Lewis of
> Caerleon). For Margaret this was too good an opportunity to pass
> up, as she'd been aiming at something similar for years.
>
> Knowing that Henry and Elizabeth eventually married, historians
> then assume with hindsight that a marriage contract was concluded
> in 1483. But thinking people will realize that this was contrary
> to the Woodville interests at such a critical juncture. The only
> point at which Henry would qualify to get the hand of a Yorkist
> princess (both Elizabeth and Cecily were mentioned) was after
> Edward V was safely on the throne with Beaufort/Tudor assistance -
> it had to be a reward, not an incentive.
>
> Of course, the canny John Morton knew how to twist such a scheme to
> his own advantage. Hence the rumour of Edward V's death was
> swiftly followed by the declaration to the rebels that Henry Tudor
> was poised to sweep to the throne with Elizabeth as his bride. And
> everybody from then till now believed him!
> Regards, Annette


On 4 May 2009, at 06:01, fayre rose wrote:

> does carson discuss how and why dr. lewis of caerleon could or
> could not have been used to communicate between mb and ew regarding
> the betrothal of elizabeth and henry.? dr. lewis was supposed to
> have been both mb and ew's physician. this is what gave him the
> ability to pass on secret messages.
>
> henry is said to have vowed to marry one of e4's daughters, not
> specifically elizabeth at christmas 1483. does carson investigate
> the validity of this vow? or even that henry had to be pushed into
> keeping the vow.
>
> thanks
>
> roslyn
> --- On Sat, 5/2/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Hipshon
> To:
> Received: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 6:48 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1 May 2009, at 22:18, eileen wrote:
>
>> She and la Woodville had agreed that their son and daugther
>> would get married.
>
> Katy
> Annette Carson has put this into doubt, great doubt. Read her chapter
> on this and you will see that the timeline for a rapprochement
> between MB and EW is completely wrong, and I tend to agree with her.
> Doesn't make any sense at all. It could have been simply announced by
> MB and Henry and propaganda, without any involvement or input from
> the lady and her daughter in guarded sanctuary. How did MB get into
> Westminster past the guards, when she was already under suspicion for
> her earlier involvement in the Hastings plot?
> Paul
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet