hi all

Hello everyone..my name is Robin and I am new to this group,,I have always been fascinated with King Richard III and i read anything I can get my hands on about him..I think he got a bad rap in history;

Welcome, Robin, and may I also introduce myself as I too have just (yesterday) been accepted as a member of this forum. It took me nearly three months to be approved - how long did it take you?!
Regards, Annette Carson

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome, Robin, and may I also introduce myself as I too have just (yesterday) been accepted as a member of this forum. It took me nearly three months to be approved - how long did it take you?!
> Regards, Annette Carson
>
Hi Anette, I also welcome you to the forum...It took me two days to become a member..
take care,
robbielynne mcalister

Welcome to you both and look forward to hearing from you

Regards

Coral


On 5/12/09, rlmcalister77 <rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome, Robin, and may I also introduce myself as I too have just
> (yesterday) been accepted as a member of this forum. It took me nearly three
> months to be approved - how long did it take you?!
> > Regards, Annette Carson
> >
> Hi Anette, I also welcome you to the forum...It took me two days to become
> a member..
> take care,
> robbielynne mcalister
>
>
>

--- In , C Nelson <c.nelson1@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome to you both and look forward to hearing from you
>
> Regards
>
> Coral

Hi Robin and Annette. Glad you persevered Annette after having to wait so long. Must have been a hiccip!

Annette have enjoyed your book soooooooo much. Thank you. Am embarking on a second reading if it. Taking it more slowly this time.....

best wishes
eileen


>
>
> On 5/12/09, rlmcalister77 <rlmcalister77@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome, Robin, and may I also introduce myself as I too have just
> > (yesterday) been accepted as a member of this forum. It took me nearly three
> > months to be approved - how long did it take you?!
> > > Regards, Annette Carson
> > >
> > Hi Anette, I also welcome you to the forum...It took me two days to become
> > a member..
> > take care,
> > robbielynne mcalister
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

welcome to the group, robin and annette.
 
maybe it's something in the way we apply or write about our interest in richard iii.
 
it took several weeks for my membership to be validated too.
 
roslyn - a serious researcher.

--- On Tue, 5/12/09, rlmcalister77 <rlmcalister77@...> wrote:

From: rlmcalister77 <rlmcalister77@...>
Subject: Re: hi all
To:
Received: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 11:23 AM








--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ ..." <ajcarson@.. .> wrote:
>
> Welcome, Robin, and may I also introduce myself as I too have just (yesterday) been accepted as a member of this forum. It took me nearly three months to be approved - how long did it take you?!
> Regards, Annette Carson
>
Hi Anette, I also welcome you to the forum...It took me two days to become a member..
take care,
robbielynne mcalister

Greetings and welcome Annette! it's always nice
to have another ally for good King Richard.
I really hope you like our group. I look forward
to having some great discussions with you. Enjoy!


all the best
Tom

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Welcome, Robin, and may I also introduce myself as I too have just (yesterday) been accepted as a member of this forum. It took me nearly three months to be approved - how long did it take you?!
> Regards, Annette Carson
>


Welcome, Annette. I am looking forward to reading your book, and it's great to have you here in the group.

(May I suggest that your long wait for approval may have been due to the moderators checking to be sure that someone wasn't simply using your name -- akin to someone trying to join under the name Alison Weir or Michael Hicks or Thomas More, then producing perhaps controversial posts that would be pinned to the real Weir et al.)

Katy

Hi Katy - Gosh, I never thought of identity theft! That may be possible, of course, but I did quote my Richard III Society membership number, and also sent about half a dozen emails to various people at the Society as well as to the Yahoo address for the group's moderator, mostly during the month of March (by April I had given up). I suspect it's just another example of how this internet technology is just fine when it works, but totally beyond the control of humankind when it doesn't!
Regards, Annette


--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>>
> (May I suggest that your long wait for approval may have been due to the moderators checking to be sure that someone wasn't simply using your name -- akin to someone trying to join under the name Alison Weir or Michael Hicks or Thomas More, then producing perhaps controversial posts that would be pinned to the real Weir et al.)
>
> Katy
>

I'm still laughing at the thought of Weir joining the Forum! I
imagine it would be like swallowing razor blades for her!
But I take your point!
Paul

On 13 May 2009, at 16:50, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , "annettecarson@..."
> <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Welcome, Robin, and may I also introduce myself as I too have just
>> (yesterday) been accepted as a member of this forum. It took me
>> nearly three months to be approved - how long did it take you?!
>> Regards, Annette Carson
>>
>
>
> Welcome, Annette. I am looking forward to reading your book, and
> it's great to have you here in the group.
>
> (May I suggest that your long wait for approval may have been due
> to the moderators checking to be sure that someone wasn't simply
> using your name -- akin to someone trying to join under the name
> Alison Weir or Michael Hicks or Thomas More, then producing perhaps
> controversial posts that would be pinned to the real Weir et al.)
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just given your
book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now somewhere in
the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty -- though
I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.

I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Thank you, Tom - I'm definitely looking forward to any discussions in which I can participate, assuming I know anything at all about the subject! Maybe we could invite topics of discussion from any new members who have things they have 'always' wanted to know?
Regards, Annette

--- In , "Tom Bert" <tbe4u@...> wrote:
> Greetings and welcome Annette! it's always nice
> to have another ally for good King Richard.
> I really hope you like our group. I look forward
> to having some great discussions with you. Enjoy!
> all the best
> Tom
>

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Tom - I'm definitely looking forward to any discussions in which I can participate, assuming I know anything at all about the subject! Maybe we could invite topics of discussion from any new members who have things they have 'always' wanted to know?
> Regards, Annette



Annette, I think you are going to be a real asset to this group -- I'm not all that new a member, but there are quite a number of topics that I'm always interested in discussing, however many times they may have already been through the mill.

Katy

Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.

Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-), but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library. Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the story out there. For general information, the only source from which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK). Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.

As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!), and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me to insert some updated information and amendments into the paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the hardback edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.

Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
Annette

--- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)" <axsc@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just given your
> book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now somewhere in
> the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty -- though
> I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
>
> I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>

Amazon lists the paperback as due for release on 1st July and available for pre-order, with currently two second-hand copies of the hardback available.

I note that they also have books whose titles suggest that John of England and Henri III of France were also maligned kings !

Richard G

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.
>
> Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-), but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library. Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the story out there. For general information, the only source from which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK). Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.
>
> As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!), and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me to insert some updated information and amendments into the paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the hardback edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.
>
> Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
> Annette
>
> --- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)" <axsc@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just given your
> > book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now somewhere in
> > the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty -- though
> > I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
> >
> > I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> >
>

--- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Amazon lists the paperback as due for release on 1st July and available for pre-order, with currently two second-hand copies of the hardback available.

Richard G

Two secondhand copies available you say, well there you go. Should be able to discuss soon at this rate...
eileen
>
> I note that they also have books whose titles suggest that John of England and Henri III of France were also maligned kings !
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.
> >
> > Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-), but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library. Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the story out there. For general information, the only source from which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK). Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.
> >
> > As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!), and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me to insert some updated information and amendments into the paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the hardback edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.
> >
> > Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
> > Annette
> >
> > --- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)" <axsc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just given your
> > > book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now somewhere in
> > > the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty -- though
> > > I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
> > >
> > > I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
> > >
> > > L.P.H.,
> > >
> > > Ann
> > >
> >
>

Gentle reader, do not be deceived! "Richard III: The Maligned King" really is not presently available from Amazon - a clue is the price tag of over £75 for one of those alleged secondhand copies. Unfortunately booksellers often advertise books that they don't have but expect will be reprinted, and meanwhile you are kept waiting 8 weeks only to find out they can't supply it. This has just happened to a journalist friend in Australia who tried to order one of those two mythical Amazon copies - she is now hopping mad and ordering it from the R3 Society instead. Nothing wrong with checking it out from the library, then if you think it's worth buying eventually, the cover price of the paperback will be (I'm told) £12.99, and of course a lot less via Amazon.
Regards, Annette

> --- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Amazon lists the paperback as due for release on 1st July and available for pre-order, with currently two second-hand copies of the hardback available.

Can't imagine why anyone would want to sell their copy!
John maligned? Absolutely. Henri III? Don't know enough about him.
Actually, don't know a thing!:-)
Paul

On 15 May 2009, at 19:28, rgcorris wrote:

> Amazon lists the paperback as due for release on 1st July and
> available for pre-order, with currently two second-hand copies of
> the hardback available.
>
> I note that they also have books whose titles suggest that John of
> England and Henri III of France were also maligned kings !
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@..."
> <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some
>> mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It
>> suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing
>> went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes
>> by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury
>> who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and
>> the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies
>> were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not
>> surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I
>> personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.
>>
>> Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-),
>> but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library.
>> Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the
>> story out there. For general information, the only source from
>> which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK).
>> Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.
>>
>> As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see
>> these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much
>> evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic
>> in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!),
>> and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material
>> that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this
>> group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice
>> pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me
>> to insert some updated information and amendments into the
>> paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the
>> hardback edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.
>>
>> Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
>> Annette
>>
>> --- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
>> <axsc@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just
>>> given your
>>> book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now
>>> somewhere in
>>> the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty --
>>> though
>>> I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
>>>
>>> I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
>>>
>>> L.P.H.,
>>>
>>> Ann
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Can't imagine why anyone would want to sell their copy!

Paul

1. Annette...you wrote "...the resentful Earl of Northumberland who ensured that Richard's staunch City of YORK never received his call to arms.." I never knew that Northumberland had done this. Is it known how be went about this? Could you please enlarge on this?
Thanks
Eileen


eileen
> John maligned? Absolutely. Henri III? Don't know enough about him.
> Actually, don't know a thing!:-)
> Paul
>
> On 15 May 2009, at 19:28, rgcorris wrote:
>
> > Amazon lists the paperback as due for release on 1st July and
> > available for pre-order, with currently two second-hand copies of
> > the hardback available.
> >
> > I note that they also have books whose titles suggest that John of
> > England and Henri III of France were also maligned kings !
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "annettecarson@"
> > <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some
> >> mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It
> >> suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing
> >> went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes
> >> by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury
> >> who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and
> >> the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies
> >> were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not
> >> surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I
> >> personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.
> >>
> >> Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-),
> >> but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library.
> >> Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the
> >> story out there. For general information, the only source from
> >> which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK).
> >> Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.
> >>
> >> As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see
> >> these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much
> >> evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic
> >> in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!),
> >> and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material
> >> that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this
> >> group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice
> >> pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me
> >> to insert some updated information and amendments into the
> >> paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the
> >> hardback edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
> >> Annette
> >>
> >> --- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
> >> <axsc@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just
> >>> given your
> >>> book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now
> >>> somewhere in
> >>> the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty --
> >>> though
> >>> I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
> >>>
> >>> I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
> >>>
> >>> L.P.H.,
> >>>
> >>> Ann
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

annette, send a copy to oprah winfrey. if she likes your book, you will gain so much publicity it will make your head spin, (you may even get a free trip to america.) oprah has a book club where she promotes books she really likes. oprah has millions of followers in north america.
 
roslyn

--- On Fri, 5/15/09, annettecarson@... <ajcarson@...> wrote:


From: annettecarson@... <ajcarson@...>
Subject: Re: hi all
To:
Received: Friday, May 15, 2009, 1:34 PM








Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.

Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-), but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library. Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the story out there. For general information, the only source from which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK). Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.

As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!), and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me to insert some updated information and amendments into the paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the hardback edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.

Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
Annette

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)" <axsc@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just given your
> book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now somewhere in
> the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty -- though
> I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
>
> I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>

king john lackland was maligned. he was accused of being a werewolf too.
the story is: he was murdered/poisoned by a priest. after his death there were horrid screams and cries coming from his grave. the townspeople disinterred him and flung his body to rot on unconsecrated ground. afterwards, king john was seen as a werewolf in the area. no king of england has been named john since bad ole king john.
 
john actually made reforms that upset the lords temporal and spiritual..they turned on him. i find john interesting because there are some parallels to ricardian mythology.
 
i can't comment on h3, because i have not studied him.
 
roslyn

--- On Fri, 5/15/09, rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:


From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...>
Subject: Re: The Maligned King (hi all)
To:
Received: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:28 PM








Amazon lists the paperback as due for release on 1st July and available for pre-order, with currently two second-hand copies of the hardback available.

I note that they also have books whose titles suggest that John of England and Henri III of France were also maligned kings !

Richard G

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ ..." <ajcarson@.. .> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.
>
> Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-), but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library. Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the story out there. For general information, the only source from which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK). Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.
>
> As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!), and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me to insert some updated information and amendments into the paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the hardback edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.
>
> Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
> Annette
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)" <axsc@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just given your
> > book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now somewhere in
> > the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty -- though
> > I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
> >
> > I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> >
>

That no king since John has been called John is a matter of chance. Edward I, Edward II, Edward III and Henry IV all had sons named John, but apart from Edward I's John, who died young, all were younger sons and it was their elder brothers who succeeded. The best-known of these Johns was, of course, Edward III's son John of Gaunt. Henry IV, who was Gaunt's only son from his first two marriages, named his fourth son John (Duke of Bedford), and it was after this that the name seems to have died out in royal usage, apart from George V's youngest son, nearly 500 years later.




________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 May, 2009 4:44:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The Maligned King (hi all)





king john lackland was maligned. he was accused of being a werewolf too.
the story is: he was murdered/poisoned by a priest. after his death there were horrid screams and cries coming from his grave. the townspeople disinterred him and flung his body to rot on unconsecrated ground. afterwards, king john was seen as a werewolf in the area. no king of england has been named john since bad ole king john.
 
john actually made reforms that upset the lords temporal and spiritual..they turned on him. i find john interesting because there are some parallels to ricardian mythology.
 
i can't comment on h3, because i have not studied him.
 
roslyn

--- On Fri, 5/15/09, rgcorris <RSG_Corris@hotmail. com> wrote:

From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@hotmail. com>
Subject: Re: The Maligned King (hi all)
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:28 PM

Amazon lists the paperback as due for release on 1st July and available for pre-order, with currently two second-hand copies of the hardback available.

I note that they also have books whose titles suggest that John of England and Henri III of France were also maligned kings !

Richard G

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ ..." <ajcarson@.. .> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.
>
> Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-), but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library. Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the story out there. For general information, the only source from which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK). Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.
>
> As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!), and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me to insert some updated information and amendments into the paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the hardback edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.
>
> Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
> Annette
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)" <axsc@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just given your
> > book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now somewhere in
> > the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty -- though
> > I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
> >
> > I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> >
>

Hi Eileen - Sorry this response has been a little delayed, but it's been a busy time lately. Your last post said, 'Annette...you wrote "...the resentful Earl of Northumberland who ensured that Richard's staunch City of YORK never received his call to arms.." I never knew that Northumberland had done this. Is it known how he went about this? Could you please enlarge on this?' - so here goes.

My remark about the Earl of Northumberland is derived from events, reports and general opinion. In 1483 he had been Richard's lieutenant in the North and had been in charge of the muster called by Richard in reaction to the discovery of the Hastings plot. Things changed, however, after Richard seized the throne. In 1485 he corresponded with Henry Tudor in Henry's quest to find a bride (knowing him to be a rebel), and historians like Keith Dockray agree that his loyalty became equivocal. Early sources refer to him as holding himself "neutral". Even the careful Charles Ross, while not admitting Northumberland acted traitorously, concedes that his loyalty was questionable ("whatever his proclivities", says Ross).

In the York Council minutes there is no record of Northumberland calling any muster of citizens prior to Bosworth, even though he was the king's commissioner of array. Instead, on hearing that Henry Tudor had invaded, the councillors on their own initiative deputed a representative to be sent to Richard to ask him what help he needed (16 August). By the time this person, John Sponer, arrived at Richard's last known whereabouts, the king had moved on. Eventually the king himself had to despatch a John Nicholson to York to call for troops. Nicholson's message was recorded in the York minutes on 19 August - by then, although the Council immediately called for fourscore men, it was in all likelihood too late for the York contingent to be mustered, outfitted and despatched to arrive in time to see action. Northumberland himself, after sending messages before Richard's muster saying he would come immediately, arrived late.

Sir George Buck is scathing about Northumberland's betrayal of Richard and doesn't mince words: Richard would have done better to execute him instead of being so forgiving. Arthur Kincaid's note to Buck is worth quoting: "Northumberland, whose power in the North was overshadowed only by Richard's, had once before played the game of neutrality, not stirring to strike for either Henry VI or Edward IV in 1471. Before Bosworth he failed to call the citizens of York to arms, leaving the job to the city itself, so that he could command an army composed primarily of forces personally loyal to him (Kendall, p.420)."

Kendall's notes (mainly note 11 chapter 11) intimate that the significance of these York Council minutes regarding Sponor and Nicholson had gone "hitherto unnoticed". He suggests Northumberland's actions "represented perhaps a kind of revenge for the times in the past when Northumberland had summoned the men of York, only to discover that they had obeyed Richard's call instead." There's a lot more opinion and comment in Ross and Kendall, who are worth reading on the subject.

My belief is that Buck wouldn't have had any personal reason to accuse Northumberland unjustly, so it's likely that the earl's double-dealing was viewed so badly in northern parts that it went down in oral tradition (being lynched is a fairly strong clue, and don't tell me it was purely because he was collecting taxes!). Certainly his contingent never struck a blow in anger at Bosworth, and not, apparently, because of the location on Ambion Hill where battlefield experts have so far assumed they were deployed.

I hope the above answers your question - at the end of the day my book reflects what I think happened, and I can only say it's very suspicious that the York muster wasn't raised. But like so much else, it's a case of deduction based on very few really solid facts.
Regards. Annette

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
Hi Annette, your reply has indeed answered my questions regarding Northumberland. I did in fact read Kendall's book but as it was about 20 years ago have forgotten some of the details in it. Methinks time to buy a new copy of this book, the first having been chewed up many years ago by a bull mastiff puppy!

I always considered Northumberland a traitor in the biggest way but have recently came across remarks that he *might* have been judged too harshly and was unable to engage his men at Bosworth because of difficulties with the terrain plus getting/receiving messages. I like to be fair so having seen what you had written felt you would be able to enlighten me on this....which you have.

God, wasnt it dangerous times to be living in when things of such great importance spun around on someone's petty jealousies. I think Jealousy was a big motive behind Hasting's volte-face. However I am no a historian only an avid Ricardian so probably take a simplistic view of things.

Now reassured Northumberland did in fact turn his back on Richard at Bosworth I am very pleased his chickens came home to roost and he was done to death by Yorkshiremen who had not forgotten their true king. Oh yeah I hope it blooming well hurt :0)
eileen
>
> Hi Eileen - Sorry this response has been a little delayed, but it's been a busy time lately. Your last post said, 'Annette...you wrote "...the resentful Earl of Northumberland who ensured that Richard's staunch City of YORK never received his call to arms.." I never knew that Northumberland had done this. Is it known how he went about this? Could you please enlarge on this?' - so here goes.
>
> My remark about the Earl of Northumberland is derived from events, reports and general opinion. In 1483 he had been Richard's lieutenant in the North and had been in charge of the muster called by Richard in reaction to the discovery of the Hastings plot. Things changed, however, after Richard seized the throne. In 1485 he corresponded with Henry Tudor in Henry's quest to find a bride (knowing him to be a rebel), and historians like Keith Dockray agree that his loyalty became equivocal. Early sources refer to him as holding himself "neutral". Even the careful Charles Ross, while not admitting Northumberland acted traitorously, concedes that his loyalty was questionable ("whatever his proclivities", says Ross).
>
> In the York Council minutes there is no record of Northumberland calling any muster of citizens prior to Bosworth, even though he was the king's commissioner of array. Instead, on hearing that Henry Tudor had invaded, the councillors on their own initiative deputed a representative to be sent to Richard to ask him what help he needed (16 August). By the time this person, John Sponer, arrived at Richard's last known whereabouts, the king had moved on. Eventually the king himself had to despatch a John Nicholson to York to call for troops. Nicholson's message was recorded in the York minutes on 19 August - by then, although the Council immediately called for fourscore men, it was in all likelihood too late for the York contingent to be mustered, outfitted and despatched to arrive in time to see action. Northumberland himself, after sending messages before Richard's muster saying he would come immediately, arrived late.
>
> Sir George Buck is scathing about Northumberland's betrayal of Richard and doesn't mince words: Richard would have done better to execute him instead of being so forgiving. Arthur Kincaid's note to Buck is worth quoting: "Northumberland, whose power in the North was overshadowed only by Richard's, had once before played the game of neutrality, not stirring to strike for either Henry VI or Edward IV in 1471. Before Bosworth he failed to call the citizens of York to arms, leaving the job to the city itself, so that he could command an army composed primarily of forces personally loyal to him (Kendall, p.420)."
>
> Kendall's notes (mainly note 11 chapter 11) intimate that the significance of these York Council minutes regarding Sponor and Nicholson had gone "hitherto unnoticed". He suggests Northumberland's actions "represented perhaps a kind of revenge for the times in the past when Northumberland had summoned the men of York, only to discover that they had obeyed Richard's call instead." There's a lot more opinion and comment in Ross and Kendall, who are worth reading on the subject.
>
> My belief is that Buck wouldn't have had any personal reason to accuse Northumberland unjustly, so it's likely that the earl's double-dealing was viewed so badly in northern parts that it went down in oral tradition (being lynched is a fairly strong clue, and don't tell me it was purely because he was collecting taxes!). Certainly his contingent never struck a blow in anger at Bosworth, and not, apparently, because of the location on Ambion Hill where battlefield experts have so far assumed they were deployed.
>
> I hope the above answers your question - at the end of the day my book reflects what I think happened, and I can only say it's very suspicious that the York muster wasn't raised. But like so much else, it's a case of deduction based on very few really solid facts.
> Regards. Annette
>

I agree about not judging harshly without grounds. Still, one of the excuses you mention that are put forward on Northumberland's behalf (that the disposition of the royal troops on Ambion Hill prevented him from playing an active part at Bosworth) probably has now gone out of the window with the relocation of the battle. Maybe when they decide where it really took place, we may learn what opportunity to participate was open to him.

Charles Ross is one who argues for Northumberland's communications difficulties, but it was August, not midwinter, and the roads were passable by messengers. For example it took only two days from Leicester to York - so why couldn't Northumberland's messenger get through to York when he had only to negotiate the East Riding?

Jealousy, yes, but I don't think this was jealousy of a personal nature, it was resistance to the Plantagents' empire-building in what the Percys considered their territory. It's all of a kind with David Hipshon's argument (rather obvious, I'd have thought) that Richard's support for the Harringtons against the Stanleys in land disputes contributed to losing the support of the latter family, although I doubt Thomas Stanley would have come out on Tudor's side if he hadn't happened to be married to his mother, a rather important detail ... Essentially the magnates wanted to retain their personal fiefdoms and mistrusted any ruler who threatened their autonomy, and Richard's Acts of Parliament didn't help either!

One can probably trace the Percy antagonism back to Edward IV's fatal error in giving the earldom to John Mortimer - then, worse still, taking it away from John and giving it back, thereby alienating the Neville family too! Maybe that will be David Hipshon's next great revelation.

I imagine we all have our theories about Hastings, but one thing I will never believe is that the Duke of Gloucester sent some jobbing attorney (Catesby) round to Hastings's place to ask whether he could count on his support if he made a grab for the crown ... and that Hastings was so daft as to blurt out to the same attorney that he was against the idea. It's such a hammy piece of theatre on Thomas More's part that it's almost on a level with French farce - and yet there are still people around who believe it really happened.
Regards, Annette

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>> Hi Annette, your reply has indeed answered my questions regarding Northumberland. I did in fact read Kendall's book but as it was about 20 years ago have forgotten some of the details in it. Methinks time to buy a new copy of this book, the first having been chewed up many years ago by a bull mastiff puppy!
>
> I always considered Northumberland a traitor in the biggest way but have recently came across remarks that he *might* have been judged too harshly and was unable to engage his men at Bosworth because of difficulties with the terrain plus getting/receiving messages. I like to be fair so having seen what you had written felt you would be able to enlighten me on this....which you have.
>
> God, wasnt it dangerous times to be living in when things of such great importance spun around on someone's petty jealousies. I think Jealousy was a big motive behind Hasting's volte-face. However I am no a historian only an avid Ricardian so probably take a simplistic view of things.
>
> Now reassured Northumberland did in fact turn his back on Richard at Bosworth I am very pleased his chickens came home to roost and he was done to death by Yorkshiremen who had not forgotten their true king. Oh yeah I hope it blooming well hurt :0)
> eileen

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote: <snipped>
> I imagine we all have our theories about Hastings, but one thing I will never believe is that the Duke of Gloucester sent some jobbing attorney (Catesby) round to Hastings's place to ask whether he could count on his support if he made a grab for the crown ... and that Hastings was so daft as to blurt out to the same attorney that he was against the idea. It's such a hammy piece of theatre on Thomas More's part that it's almost on a level with French farce - and yet there are still people around who believe it really happened.
> Regards, Annette

But it makes such a wonderful scene! Let me have a go at a bit of dramatisation.

The Scene, Hastings' House. HASTINGS is seated, reading The Daily Yorkist.

Enter CATESBY.

Catesby: Afternoon, Lord Hastings. The Duke of Gloucester is thinking of overthrowing the King and taking his throne. He sent me round to see whether you're up for it or not.

Hastings: Certainly not! Edward IV was my bestest mate, and I'll never take sides against his son.

Catesby: Oh! And how is Mistress Shore then?

Hastings: Quite well. We're just popping round to Westminster Sanctuary later for tea with the Queen.

Catesby: Right-o. So, I'll tell the Duke you don't think it's a good idea then?

Hastings: Yeah, I'm sure he won't mind. Dickie and I go back years. Give him my love.

Catesby: OK. Can't I change your mind or anything? I mean, you could probably ask for an earldom or something.

Hastings: Not today, thank you.

No, I guess it does strain credibility just a bit.

Brian W

--- In , "Brian Wainwright" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>


>
> But it makes such a wonderful scene! Let me have a go at a bit of dramatisation.
>
> The Scene, Hastings' House. HASTINGS is seated, reading The Daily Yorkist.
>
> Enter CATESBY.
>
> Catesby: Afternoon, Lord Hastings. The Duke of Gloucester is thinking of overthrowing the King and taking his throne. He sent me round to see whether you're up for it or not.
>
> Hastings: Certainly not! Edward IV was my bestest mate, and I'll never take sides against his son.
>
> Catesby: Oh! And how is Mistress Shore then?
>
> Hastings: Quite well. We're just popping round to Westminster Sanctuary later for tea with the Queen.
>
> Catesby: Right-o. So, I'll tell the Duke you don't think it's a good idea then?
>
> Hastings: Yeah, I'm sure he won't mind. Dickie and I go back years. Give him my love.
>
> Catesby: OK. Can't I change your mind or anything? I mean, you could probably ask for an earldom or something.
>
> Hastings: Not today, thank you.
>
> No, I guess it does strain credibility just a bit.
>
> Brian W

Can you imagine that lot from the ' Life of Brian ' in these roles !
eileen
>

Oh, wonderful - just when I needed a good laugh! Am I by any chance corresponding with the author of "The Adventures of Alianore Audley"? I am a huge fan!
Annette

--- In , "Brian Wainwright" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> But it makes such a wonderful scene! Let me have a go at a bit of dramatisation.
>
> The Scene, Hastings' House. HASTINGS is seated, reading The Daily Yorkist.
>
> Enter CATESBY.
>
> Catesby: Afternoon, Lord Hastings. The Duke of Gloucester is thinking of overthrowing the King and taking his throne. He sent me round to see whether you're up for it or not.
>
> Hastings: Certainly not! Edward IV was my bestest mate, and I'll never take sides against his son.
>
> Catesby: Oh! And how is Mistress Shore then?
>
> Hastings: Quite well. We're just popping round to Westminster Sanctuary later for tea with the Queen.
>
> Catesby: Right-o. So, I'll tell the Duke you don't think it's a good idea then?
>
> Hastings: Yeah, I'm sure he won't mind. Dickie and I go back years. Give him my love.
>
> Catesby: OK. Can't I change your mind or anything? I mean, you could probably ask for an earldom or something.
>
> Hastings: Not today, thank you.
>
> No, I guess it does strain credibility just a bit.
>
> Brian W
>

Our Richard also had an elder brother named John who died young.
Paul

On 18 May 2009, at 11:26, A LYON wrote:

> That no king since John has been called John is a matter of chance.
> Edward I, Edward II, Edward III and Henry IV all had sons named
> John, but apart from Edward I's John, who died young, all were
> younger sons and it was their elder brothers who succeeded. The
> best-known of these Johns was, of course, Edward III's son John of
> Gaunt. Henry IV, who was Gaunt's only son from his first two
> marriages, named his fourth son John (Duke of Bedford), and it was
> after this that the name seems to have died out in royal usage,
> apart from George V's youngest son, nearly 500 years later.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 17 May, 2009 4:44:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: The Maligned King (hi
> all)
>
>
>
>
>
> king john lackland was maligned. he was accused of being a werewolf
> too.
> the story is: he was murdered/poisoned by a priest. after his death
> there were horrid screams and cries coming from his grave. the
> townspeople disinterred him and flung his body to rot on
> unconsecrated ground. afterwards, king john was seen as a werewolf
> in the area. no king of england has been named john since bad ole
> king john.
>
> john actually made reforms that upset the lords temporal and
> spiritual..they turned on him. i find john interesting because
> there are some parallels to ricardian mythology.
>
> i can't comment on h3, because i have not studied him.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Fri, 5/15/09, rgcorris <RSG_Corris@hotmail. com> wrote:
>
> From: rgcorris <RSG_Corris@hotmail. com>
> Subject: Re: The Maligned King (hi all)
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Received: Friday, May 15, 2009, 2:28 PM
>
> Amazon lists the paperback as due for release on 1st July and
> available for pre-order, with currently two second-hand copies of
> the hardback available.
>
> I note that they also have books whose titles suggest that John of
> England and Henri III of France were also maligned kings !
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
> "annettecarson@ ..." <ajcarson@.. .> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you very much, Ann, and I am so glad that maybe some
>> mainstream magazine may yet review "The Maligned king". It
>> suffered from being produced at the time when Sutton Publishing
>> went into administration and The History Press rose from the ashes
>> by way of a management buy-out. THP haemorrhaged staff like fury
>> who were replaced by people of dubious talent and experience, and
>> the extent of their marketing effort was that two dozen copies
>> were sent to the usual publications together with a leaflet. Not
>> surprisingly, the only reviews it received were those that I
>> personally drummed up from among the mediaevalist societies.
>>
>> Increased sales - well, naturally these are always welcome :-),
>> but I'm just as happy if people get it from the library.
>> Essentially the important thing is to put the other side of the
>> story out there. For general information, the only source from
>> which it's presently available is the Richard III Society (UK).
>> Amazon is still advertising it, but doesn't actually have stock.
>>
>> As to disussions of some of my arguments, I'd be delighted to see
>> these happen whenever you like. I did try to present as much
>> evidence as possible in favour of my ideas, but I am not dogmatic
>> in my conclusions (especially the one about Edward IV's death!),
>> and in particular it would be instructive to learn of any material
>> that appears to contradict them. Marie Walsh/Barnfield of this
>> group has already been amazingly generous with her time and advice
>> pointing out lacunae, both small and large, which has enabled me
>> to insert some updated information and amendments into the
>> paperback when it comes out. Meanwhile anyone who has the hardback
>> edition can get a list of the principal amendments from me.
>>
>> Thanks again to all who enjoyed reading it.
>> Annette
>>
>> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sharp, Ann
>> (GT&D)" <axsc@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Annette, and welcome. By a weird coincidence, I had just
>>> given your
>>> book a plug to the webmistress of royalty.nu, who is now
>>> somewhere in
>>> the process of adding it to the queue of New Books on Royalty --
>>> though
>>> I think she has in mind scheduling the paperback edition.
>>>
>>> I hope this leads to more sales -- it was a pleasure to read.
>>>
>>> L.P.H.,
>>>
>>> Ann
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

catesby was hastings lawyer/servant. richard didn't send him.
 
moreover, catesby's daughter married roger wake, a stepson to margaret fitzlewis aka fitzjohn aka lewis aka johan aka john. she was also identified as margaret hankfort/d. margaret fitzlewis was the elusive lady lucy, rumoured mother of arthur waite aka plantagenet, e4's illegitmate son.
 
some genealogists say she was the mother of roger, but margaret was married to william lucy who died in 1460. so, margaret could not have married thomas before then. roger was about 8 when margaret became his stepmother. his father thomas was the son of thomas of agnes lovett or lovell. i'm still sorting her out. lovett seems to be winning as the correct surname for agnes.
 
margaret died circa 1466, her husband then married elizabeth beauchamp, widow of george neville and a half sister to anne beauchamp, mother of anne neville, the wife of richard iii. so, catesby's daughter's stepmother in law was connected to anne neville. it would bode well for the catesby family to put their eggs in richard's basket.
 
catesby was significantly older than richard, but his daughter elizabeth was richard and anne's age.
 
it is very possible that catesby was in the know about e4's and hastings' womanising, and the people who paid the price for being e4 and his cronies's conquests. being close to hastings, catesby may have even known the plans and plot to kill richard iii. it was this that he reported to richard that led to the arrests and execution of hastings at that june meeting.
perhaps catesby sent a message to anne via his daughter elizabeth. anne in turn told her husband. these people had spies every where. there was always opportunity for reward and the ability to move up the ranks.
 
i'm still researching catesby and his kin connections direct and inlaw related. margaret fitzlewis d. 1466 was aunt of mary fitzlewis married to anthony woodville. catesby was part of the inner circle of the hastings/woodville plot, even if he was just a servant.
 
moreover, being hastings' servant and a lawyer, catesby had probably heard about the illegitmacy of the princes, and had known richard had every legal right to claim the throne.
 
he did not possess hastings' loyalty to e4, but was legally loyal to the crown. additionally if things did go into an uproar, it was better for catesby and his family to be on the legal side of things. richard had immense power as the protector, and now even more as legal heir to the throne.
catesby buttered his bread and gave it to richard. he was well rewarded for such a tasty morsal.
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 5/18/09, annettecarson@... <ajcarson@...> wrote:


From: annettecarson@... <ajcarson@...>
Subject: Re: The Maligned King
To:
Received: Monday, May 18, 2009, 12:12 PM








I agree about not judging harshly without grounds. Still, one of the excuses you mention that are put forward on Northumberland' s behalf (that the disposition of the royal troops on Ambion Hill prevented him from playing an active part at Bosworth) probably has now gone out of the window with the relocation of the battle. Maybe when they decide where it really took place, we may learn what opportunity to participate was open to him.

Charles Ross is one who argues for Northumberland' s communications difficulties, but it was August, not midwinter, and the roads were passable by messengers. For example it took only two days from Leicester to York - so why couldn't Northumberland' s messenger get through to York when he had only to negotiate the East Riding?

Jealousy, yes, but I don't think this was jealousy of a personal nature, it was resistance to the Plantagents' empire-building in what the Percys considered their territory. It's all of a kind with David Hipshon's argument (rather obvious, I'd have thought) that Richard's support for the Harringtons against the Stanleys in land disputes contributed to losing the support of the latter family, although I doubt Thomas Stanley would have come out on Tudor's side if he hadn't happened to be married to his mother, a rather important detail ... Essentially the magnates wanted to retain their personal fiefdoms and mistrusted any ruler who threatened their autonomy, and Richard's Acts of Parliament didn't help either!

One can probably trace the Percy antagonism back to Edward IV's fatal error in giving the earldom to John Mortimer - then, worse still, taking it away from John and giving it back, thereby alienating the Neville family too! Maybe that will be David Hipshon's next great revelation.

I imagine we all have our theories about Hastings, but one thing I will never believe is that the Duke of Gloucester sent some jobbing attorney (Catesby) round to Hastings's place to ask whether he could count on his support if he made a grab for the crown ... and that Hastings was so daft as to blurt out to the same attorney that he was against the idea. It's such a hammy piece of theatre on Thomas More's part that it's almost on a level with French farce - and yet there are still people around who believe it really happened.
Regards, Annette

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen" <ebatesparrot@ ...> wrote:
>> Hi Annette, your reply has indeed answered my questions regarding Northumberland. I did in fact read Kendall's book but as it was about 20 years ago have forgotten some of the details in it. Methinks time to buy a new copy of this book, the first having been chewed up many years ago by a bull mastiff puppy!
>
> I always considered Northumberland a traitor in the biggest way but have recently came across remarks that he *might* have been judged too harshly and was unable to engage his men at Bosworth because of difficulties with the terrain plus getting/receiving messages. I like to be fair so having seen what you had written felt you would be able to enlighten me on this....which you have.
>
> God, wasnt it dangerous times to be living in when things of such great importance spun around on someone's petty jealousies. I think Jealousy was a big motive behind Hasting's volte-face. However I am no a historian only an avid Ricardian so probably take a simplistic view of things.
>
> Now reassured Northumberland did in fact turn his back on Richard at Bosworth I am very pleased his chickens came home to roost and he was done to death by Yorkshiremen who had not forgotten their true king. Oh yeah I hope it blooming well hurt :0)
> eileen

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, wonderful - just when I needed a good laugh! Am I by any chance corresponding with the author of "The Adventures of Alianore Audley"? I am a huge fan!
> Annette
>

Yes Annette, it is I. Glad you enjoyed Alianore. I am currently working on my 'serious' novel about Richard, but am finding it hard going as there is so much to check and I know that if I get it wrong, I shall be toast!

Brian W

You've reminded me that I bought that book months and months ago but
haven't read it yet. It's in the stack of "I'll get to these soon"
books. I'll move it to the "Next in line" stack when I get home.

Janice Pearson

________________________________

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Brian
Wainwright
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Maligned King





--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "annettecarson@..."
<ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, wonderful - just when I needed a good laugh! Am I by any chance
corresponding with the author of "The Adventures of Alianore Audley"? I
am a huge fan!
> Annette
>

Yes Annette, it is I. Glad you enjoyed Alianore. I am currently working
on my 'serious' novel about Richard, but am finding it hard going as
there is so much to check and I know that if I get it wrong, I shall be
toast!

Brian W






This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this
e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this
information by a person other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized and may be illegal.

Toast? Don't I know it! But please don't be daunted, I am hereby ordering my copy.
Annette

--- In , "Brian Wainwright" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Annette, it is I. Glad you enjoyed Alianore. I am currently working on my 'serious' novel about Richard, but am finding it hard going as there is so much to check and I know that if I get it wrong, I shall be toast!