Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-20 02:44:53
In a message dated 12/19/2002 8:37:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:
> No one could look as miserable as Princess Anne!? Clarence may've
> looked sad if he was facing his dive into the barrel of Malmsey.
Forgive me for asking, but which Princess Anne? Anne of Warwick, the current
Princess Anne, maybe Anne Boleyn? I'm still fairly new to this time period
lol
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen
willison2001@... writes:
> No one could look as miserable as Princess Anne!? Clarence may've
> looked sad if he was facing his dive into the barrel of Malmsey.
Forgive me for asking, but which Princess Anne? Anne of Warwick, the current
Princess Anne, maybe Anne Boleyn? I'm still fairly new to this time period
lol
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-20 11:31:06
Princess Anne daughter of Elizabeth II. She who looks
as though she's lost a dollar & found a dime!
David
--- hockeygirl1016@... wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
In a message dated 12/19/2002 8:37:05 PM Eastern
Standard Time, <BR>
willison2001@... writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> No one could look as miserable as Princess
Anne!? Clarence may've <BR>
> looked sad if he was facing his dive into the
barrel of Malmsey.<BR>
<BR>
Forgive me for asking, but which Princess Anne? Anne
of Warwick, the current <BR>
Princess Anne, maybe Anne Boleyn? I'm still fairly new
to this time period <BR>
lol<BR>
*Vicky*<BR>
"But I love this troupe of players, this company,
the regulars on Saturday <BR>
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he
cute!"- The great Sir Ian <BR>
McKellen<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<tt>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
[email protected]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
as though she's lost a dollar & found a dime!
David
--- hockeygirl1016@... wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
In a message dated 12/19/2002 8:37:05 PM Eastern
Standard Time, <BR>
willison2001@... writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> No one could look as miserable as Princess
Anne!? Clarence may've <BR>
> looked sad if he was facing his dive into the
barrel of Malmsey.<BR>
<BR>
Forgive me for asking, but which Princess Anne? Anne
of Warwick, the current <BR>
Princess Anne, maybe Anne Boleyn? I'm still fairly new
to this time period <BR>
lol<BR>
*Vicky*<BR>
"But I love this troupe of players, this company,
the regulars on Saturday <BR>
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he
cute!"- The great Sir Ian <BR>
McKellen<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<tt>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
[email protected]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-21 10:17:40
Edward IV certainly had character faults however their was some exaggeration
in your comments. Firstly Edward never seems to have regretted his hasty
marriage and far from going off his wife he was still sleeping with her to
the end - which considering she was in her 40's and had born numerous
children is rather surprising. Her last child by Edward was only 2 when he
died in 1483.
Whilst there are descriptions of his attractiveness and sexual activity they
are probably exaggerated - we know of only two illegitimate children that
Edward had - Lord Lisle and the daughter Grace mentioned in the description
of Elizabeth Wydeville's funeral hardly the sign of a "sexual maniac". He
may not have been faithful but it seems that without exception he kept
returning to his wife's bed long after the need for an "heir and a spare"
had waned.
There is no evidence that Edward drank excessively in any contemporary
document - certainly though like his grandson Henry VIII he turned to fat as
he aged but then like Henry his once considerable activity slowed down as he
aged and probably like Henry he didn't curb his appetite to match.
Given the mess that the country was in and the appaling reputation the
English monarchy had when he was crowned he made rather a good job in
restoring things and after 1470 he gave the country peace, improved the
economy and set things up on an even keel for the first time in decades.
Had he lived two or three years longer then I suspect Richard of Gloucester
would merely be a footnote in history.
----- Original Message -----
From: <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV was to blame.
> The young Edward IV was handsome (he certainly pulled many women,) but
> a late portrait shows him as bloated, a bit like the way that Elvis
> went. But of course the point I make is that Edward's character was
> at fault. It's true that we rely on paintings & reports which may not
> be accurate, but everyone agreed that Edward was virtually a sex
> maniac - he clearly had gone off his wife probably due to her
> demanding personality - a drunk and glutton. Like Elvis, Edward died
> about 40! All of their good looks didn't save them from dubious
> characters. Alcohol is notorious for wrecking health & ability.
> Edward IV could only appear competent if you consider who preceeded
> him: the hopelessly mad & inept Henry VI.
>
> I agree with you about Henry VIII, but he was a grandson to Edward IV
> & inherited many of his characteristics. He was a bloated ego maniac
> and treated women terribly. It's said that despite all of his wives
> he simply didn't know how to handle them. That's probably why he had
> so many. His decapitation of 2 of them is unforgivable!
>
> No one could look as miserable as Princess Anne!? Clarence may've
> looked sad if he was facing his dive into the barrel of Malmsey.
>
> Richard did seem to have a religious bent, but that didn't prevent him
> from siring several illegitimate children, from killing those who
> crossed him: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, Buckingham,
> Collingbourne and several men with his own hand at Bosworth. Not your
> average priest I suggest. I think he was more a military type who
> dealt with opposition in a direct terminal way. Being a religious
> knight was normal in those days, e.g. the kinights of Malta, and
> religious hypocrites are plentiful whether then or now.
>
> As I've said before, Edward, George and Richard were quite young when
> their Father was beheaded, Richard was only 8 and this may've screwed
> them up psychologically.
>
> David
>
>
> > Willison, have you seen a picture of Edward IV? I have two of them.
>
> > He made Henry VIII look intelligent and like a man with character.
> > He looked stupid, self centered and spoiled, and in one of them he
> > looks a bit like Count Dracula (the actual individual, I mean).
> > Fritzy straight shoulder length hair, possibly red, though hard to
> > tell in a black and white photo, and half crazy expression.
> >
> > Sister, whose picture turns up in, I think, hte book on Clarence,
> > looked alot like Princess Anne, but ALOT sadder!
> >
> > Richard looks like the neurotic priest type in this menagerie! In
> > Merovingian times, every royal family had one.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
in your comments. Firstly Edward never seems to have regretted his hasty
marriage and far from going off his wife he was still sleeping with her to
the end - which considering she was in her 40's and had born numerous
children is rather surprising. Her last child by Edward was only 2 when he
died in 1483.
Whilst there are descriptions of his attractiveness and sexual activity they
are probably exaggerated - we know of only two illegitimate children that
Edward had - Lord Lisle and the daughter Grace mentioned in the description
of Elizabeth Wydeville's funeral hardly the sign of a "sexual maniac". He
may not have been faithful but it seems that without exception he kept
returning to his wife's bed long after the need for an "heir and a spare"
had waned.
There is no evidence that Edward drank excessively in any contemporary
document - certainly though like his grandson Henry VIII he turned to fat as
he aged but then like Henry his once considerable activity slowed down as he
aged and probably like Henry he didn't curb his appetite to match.
Given the mess that the country was in and the appaling reputation the
English monarchy had when he was crowned he made rather a good job in
restoring things and after 1470 he gave the country peace, improved the
economy and set things up on an even keel for the first time in decades.
Had he lived two or three years longer then I suspect Richard of Gloucester
would merely be a footnote in history.
----- Original Message -----
From: <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV was to blame.
> The young Edward IV was handsome (he certainly pulled many women,) but
> a late portrait shows him as bloated, a bit like the way that Elvis
> went. But of course the point I make is that Edward's character was
> at fault. It's true that we rely on paintings & reports which may not
> be accurate, but everyone agreed that Edward was virtually a sex
> maniac - he clearly had gone off his wife probably due to her
> demanding personality - a drunk and glutton. Like Elvis, Edward died
> about 40! All of their good looks didn't save them from dubious
> characters. Alcohol is notorious for wrecking health & ability.
> Edward IV could only appear competent if you consider who preceeded
> him: the hopelessly mad & inept Henry VI.
>
> I agree with you about Henry VIII, but he was a grandson to Edward IV
> & inherited many of his characteristics. He was a bloated ego maniac
> and treated women terribly. It's said that despite all of his wives
> he simply didn't know how to handle them. That's probably why he had
> so many. His decapitation of 2 of them is unforgivable!
>
> No one could look as miserable as Princess Anne!? Clarence may've
> looked sad if he was facing his dive into the barrel of Malmsey.
>
> Richard did seem to have a religious bent, but that didn't prevent him
> from siring several illegitimate children, from killing those who
> crossed him: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, Buckingham,
> Collingbourne and several men with his own hand at Bosworth. Not your
> average priest I suggest. I think he was more a military type who
> dealt with opposition in a direct terminal way. Being a religious
> knight was normal in those days, e.g. the kinights of Malta, and
> religious hypocrites are plentiful whether then or now.
>
> As I've said before, Edward, George and Richard were quite young when
> their Father was beheaded, Richard was only 8 and this may've screwed
> them up psychologically.
>
> David
>
>
> > Willison, have you seen a picture of Edward IV? I have two of them.
>
> > He made Henry VIII look intelligent and like a man with character.
> > He looked stupid, self centered and spoiled, and in one of them he
> > looks a bit like Count Dracula (the actual individual, I mean).
> > Fritzy straight shoulder length hair, possibly red, though hard to
> > tell in a black and white photo, and half crazy expression.
> >
> > Sister, whose picture turns up in, I think, hte book on Clarence,
> > looked alot like Princess Anne, but ALOT sadder!
> >
> > Richard looks like the neurotic priest type in this menagerie! In
> > Merovingian times, every royal family had one.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-21 17:25:02
Edward's relationship with Elizabeth certainly didn't include
monogamy. That said, she was a very attractive woman, but that
didn't prevent Edward's numerous adulterous affairs, Shore's wife
being the most obvious.
'Sex maniac' was meant to be humourous, but the main point is that
Edward alienated various important players in the drama at the time,
not least Richard, with his 'immoral' behaviour. Far more shocking
in a religious age such as that.
Thomas More refers to Edward's 'evil diet' & it beggars belief that
the man who it seems had his brother drowned in a butt of wine never
indulged in this, a man who certainly indulged in other pleasures
such as sex & food.
Edward was still relatively young to die about 40, which surprised
comtemporaries and More makes clear that his evil diet was to blame.
Richard in Titulus Regius feels that Edward declined because of his
overindulgence.
I don't think that anyone could've been as bad as Henry VI as King.
Edward relied on men like Fortescue for his economic policies,
which after the penurious position of H6 was an obvious need.
Edward's peace treaty with France was also obvious given that the
English had been kicked out only 20 years before & Edward's
indolent personality & need for money dictated this.
Ther are lots of might have beens in life, but the biggest is that
Edward could've done with a more abstemious lifestyle & then,
indeed, his son may've been old enough to prevent Richard taking
advantage.
monogamy. That said, she was a very attractive woman, but that
didn't prevent Edward's numerous adulterous affairs, Shore's wife
being the most obvious.
'Sex maniac' was meant to be humourous, but the main point is that
Edward alienated various important players in the drama at the time,
not least Richard, with his 'immoral' behaviour. Far more shocking
in a religious age such as that.
Thomas More refers to Edward's 'evil diet' & it beggars belief that
the man who it seems had his brother drowned in a butt of wine never
indulged in this, a man who certainly indulged in other pleasures
such as sex & food.
Edward was still relatively young to die about 40, which surprised
comtemporaries and More makes clear that his evil diet was to blame.
Richard in Titulus Regius feels that Edward declined because of his
overindulgence.
I don't think that anyone could've been as bad as Henry VI as King.
Edward relied on men like Fortescue for his economic policies,
which after the penurious position of H6 was an obvious need.
Edward's peace treaty with France was also obvious given that the
English had been kicked out only 20 years before & Edward's
indolent personality & need for money dictated this.
Ther are lots of might have beens in life, but the biggest is that
Edward could've done with a more abstemious lifestyle & then,
indeed, his son may've been old enough to prevent Richard taking
advantage.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-26 19:25:50
I meant the current Princess Anne.
Dora
--- DAVID WILLISON <willison2001@...> wrote:
> Princess Anne daughter of Elizabeth II. She who
> looks
> as though she's lost a dollar & found a dime!
>
> David
>
> --- hockeygirl1016@... wrote:
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> In a message dated 12/19/2002 8:37:05 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, <BR>
> willison2001@... writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> > No one could look as miserable as Princess
> Anne!? Clarence may've <BR>
> > looked sad if he was facing his dive into the
> barrel of Malmsey.<BR>
> <BR>
> Forgive me for asking, but which Princess Anne? Anne
> of Warwick, the current <BR>
> Princess Anne, maybe Anne Boleyn? I'm still fairly
> new
> to this time period <BR>
> lol<BR>
> *Vicky*<BR>
> "But I love this troupe of players, this
> company,
> the regulars on Saturday <BR>
> Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he
> cute!"- The great Sir Ian <BR>
> McKellen<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:<BR>
>
[email protected]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo!
> Terms
> of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Dora
--- DAVID WILLISON <willison2001@...> wrote:
> Princess Anne daughter of Elizabeth II. She who
> looks
> as though she's lost a dollar & found a dime!
>
> David
>
> --- hockeygirl1016@... wrote:
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> In a message dated 12/19/2002 8:37:05 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, <BR>
> willison2001@... writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> > No one could look as miserable as Princess
> Anne!? Clarence may've <BR>
> > looked sad if he was facing his dive into the
> barrel of Malmsey.<BR>
> <BR>
> Forgive me for asking, but which Princess Anne? Anne
> of Warwick, the current <BR>
> Princess Anne, maybe Anne Boleyn? I'm still fairly
> new
> to this time period <BR>
> lol<BR>
> *Vicky*<BR>
> "But I love this troupe of players, this
> company,
> the regulars on Saturday <BR>
> Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he
> cute!"- The great Sir Ian <BR>
> McKellen<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:<BR>
>
[email protected]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo!
> Terms
> of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-27 03:42:23
In a message dated 12/26/2002 2:25:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tiggernut24@... writes:
> Henry VIII grandson to Edward IV - absolutely true,
> and I hadn't ever realized it!
>
> I don't think I did say how similar they actually look
> - didn't think it was probable.
>
> Dora
oh Henry WAS Edward's grandson, in more ways than one.
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen
tiggernut24@... writes:
> Henry VIII grandson to Edward IV - absolutely true,
> and I hadn't ever realized it!
>
> I don't think I did say how similar they actually look
> - didn't think it was probable.
>
> Dora
oh Henry WAS Edward's grandson, in more ways than one.
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-27 16:40:21
In reply, I notice that Mancini said that Edward 'in food and
drink...most immoderate.' There's no prizes for guessing what type
of
drink was referred to. He also says 'he was licentious in the
extreme...to numerous women.' ...whether 'married or unmarried.' He
bought them, promised more, had his way with them then dumped them.
Sounds a bit like a sex maniac to me. I can see, if this is true,
why
some people felt that he'd frittered his life away with self-abuse &
abuse of power. Richard blamed the Woodvilles, but he never dared to
blame the person who was really at fault: Edward IV himself.
--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> Edward IV certainly had character faults however their was some
exaggeration
> in your comments. Firstly Edward never seems to have regretted his
hasty
> marriage and far from going off his wife he was still sleeping with
her to
> the end - which considering she was in her 40's and had born
numerous
> children is rather surprising. Her last child by Edward was only 2
when he
> died in 1483.
> Whilst there are descriptions of his attractiveness and sexual
activity they
> are probably exaggerated - we know of only two illegitimate
children
that
> Edward had - Lord Lisle and the daughter Grace mentioned in the
description
> of Elizabeth Wydeville's funeral hardly the sign of a "sexual
maniac". He
> may not have been faithful but it seems that without exception he
kept
> returning to his wife's bed long after the need for an "heir and a
spare"
> had waned.
>
> There is no evidence that Edward drank excessively in any
contemporary
> document - certainly though like his grandson Henry VIII he turned
to fat as
> he aged but then like Henry his once considerable activity slowed
down as he
> aged and probably like Henry he didn't curb his appetite to match.
>
> Given the mess that the country was in and the appaling reputation
the
> English monarchy had when he was crowned he made rather a good job
in
> restoring things and after 1470 he gave the country peace, improved
the
> economy and set things up on an even keel for the first time in
decades.
> Had he lived two or three years longer then I suspect Richard of
Gloucester
> would merely be a footnote in history.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <willison2001@y...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV was to blame.
>
>
> > The young Edward IV was handsome (he certainly pulled many
women,)
but
> > a late portrait shows him as bloated, a bit like the way that
Elvis
> > went. But of course the point I make is that Edward's character
was
> > at fault. It's true that we rely on paintings & reports which
may
not
> > be accurate, but everyone agreed that Edward was virtually a sex
> > maniac - he clearly had gone off his wife probably due to her
> > demanding personality - a drunk and glutton. Like Elvis, Edward
died
> > about 40! All of their good looks didn't save them from dubious
> > characters. Alcohol is notorious for wrecking health & ability.
> > Edward IV could only appear competent if you consider who
preceeded
> > him: the hopelessly mad & inept Henry VI.
> >
> > I agree with you about Henry VIII, but he was a grandson to
Edward
IV
> > & inherited many of his characteristics. He was a bloated ego
maniac
> > and treated women terribly. It's said that despite all of his
wives
> > he simply didn't know how to handle them. That's probably why he
had
> > so many. His decapitation of 2 of them is unforgivable!
> >
> > No one could look as miserable as Princess Anne!? Clarence may've
> > looked sad if he was facing his dive into the barrel of Malmsey.
> >
> > Richard did seem to have a religious bent, but that didn't
prevent
him
> > from siring several illegitimate children, from killing those who
> > crossed him: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, Buckingham,
> > Collingbourne and several men with his own hand at Bosworth. Not
your
> > average priest I suggest. I think he was more a military type who
> > dealt with opposition in a direct terminal way. Being a religious
> > knight was normal in those days, e.g. the kinights of Malta, and
> > religious hypocrites are plentiful whether then or now.
> >
> > As I've said before, Edward, George and Richard were quite young
when
> > their Father was beheaded, Richard was only 8 and this may've
screwed
> > them up psychologically.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > > Willison, have you seen a picture of Edward IV? I have two of
them.
> >
> > > He made Henry VIII look intelligent and like a man with
character.
> > > He looked stupid, self centered and spoiled, and in one of them
he
> > > looks a bit like Count Dracula (the actual individual, I mean).
> > > Fritzy straight shoulder length hair, possibly red, though hard
to
> > > tell in a black and white photo, and half crazy expression.
> > >
> > > Sister, whose picture turns up in, I think, hte book on
Clarence,
> > > looked alot like Princess Anne, but ALOT sadder!
> > >
> > > Richard looks like the neurotic priest type in this menagerie!
In
> > > Merovingian times, every royal family had one.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
drink...most immoderate.' There's no prizes for guessing what type
of
drink was referred to. He also says 'he was licentious in the
extreme...to numerous women.' ...whether 'married or unmarried.' He
bought them, promised more, had his way with them then dumped them.
Sounds a bit like a sex maniac to me. I can see, if this is true,
why
some people felt that he'd frittered his life away with self-abuse &
abuse of power. Richard blamed the Woodvilles, but he never dared to
blame the person who was really at fault: Edward IV himself.
--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> Edward IV certainly had character faults however their was some
exaggeration
> in your comments. Firstly Edward never seems to have regretted his
hasty
> marriage and far from going off his wife he was still sleeping with
her to
> the end - which considering she was in her 40's and had born
numerous
> children is rather surprising. Her last child by Edward was only 2
when he
> died in 1483.
> Whilst there are descriptions of his attractiveness and sexual
activity they
> are probably exaggerated - we know of only two illegitimate
children
that
> Edward had - Lord Lisle and the daughter Grace mentioned in the
description
> of Elizabeth Wydeville's funeral hardly the sign of a "sexual
maniac". He
> may not have been faithful but it seems that without exception he
kept
> returning to his wife's bed long after the need for an "heir and a
spare"
> had waned.
>
> There is no evidence that Edward drank excessively in any
contemporary
> document - certainly though like his grandson Henry VIII he turned
to fat as
> he aged but then like Henry his once considerable activity slowed
down as he
> aged and probably like Henry he didn't curb his appetite to match.
>
> Given the mess that the country was in and the appaling reputation
the
> English monarchy had when he was crowned he made rather a good job
in
> restoring things and after 1470 he gave the country peace, improved
the
> economy and set things up on an even keel for the first time in
decades.
> Had he lived two or three years longer then I suspect Richard of
Gloucester
> would merely be a footnote in history.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <willison2001@y...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV was to blame.
>
>
> > The young Edward IV was handsome (he certainly pulled many
women,)
but
> > a late portrait shows him as bloated, a bit like the way that
Elvis
> > went. But of course the point I make is that Edward's character
was
> > at fault. It's true that we rely on paintings & reports which
may
not
> > be accurate, but everyone agreed that Edward was virtually a sex
> > maniac - he clearly had gone off his wife probably due to her
> > demanding personality - a drunk and glutton. Like Elvis, Edward
died
> > about 40! All of their good looks didn't save them from dubious
> > characters. Alcohol is notorious for wrecking health & ability.
> > Edward IV could only appear competent if you consider who
preceeded
> > him: the hopelessly mad & inept Henry VI.
> >
> > I agree with you about Henry VIII, but he was a grandson to
Edward
IV
> > & inherited many of his characteristics. He was a bloated ego
maniac
> > and treated women terribly. It's said that despite all of his
wives
> > he simply didn't know how to handle them. That's probably why he
had
> > so many. His decapitation of 2 of them is unforgivable!
> >
> > No one could look as miserable as Princess Anne!? Clarence may've
> > looked sad if he was facing his dive into the barrel of Malmsey.
> >
> > Richard did seem to have a religious bent, but that didn't
prevent
him
> > from siring several illegitimate children, from killing those who
> > crossed him: Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Hastings, Buckingham,
> > Collingbourne and several men with his own hand at Bosworth. Not
your
> > average priest I suggest. I think he was more a military type who
> > dealt with opposition in a direct terminal way. Being a religious
> > knight was normal in those days, e.g. the kinights of Malta, and
> > religious hypocrites are plentiful whether then or now.
> >
> > As I've said before, Edward, George and Richard were quite young
when
> > their Father was beheaded, Richard was only 8 and this may've
screwed
> > them up psychologically.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > > Willison, have you seen a picture of Edward IV? I have two of
them.
> >
> > > He made Henry VIII look intelligent and like a man with
character.
> > > He looked stupid, self centered and spoiled, and in one of them
he
> > > looks a bit like Count Dracula (the actual individual, I mean).
> > > Fritzy straight shoulder length hair, possibly red, though hard
to
> > > tell in a black and white photo, and half crazy expression.
> > >
> > > Sister, whose picture turns up in, I think, hte book on
Clarence,
> > > looked alot like Princess Anne, but ALOT sadder!
> > >
> > > Richard looks like the neurotic priest type in this menagerie!
In
> > > Merovingian times, every royal family had one.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-27 20:45:33
In a message dated 12/27/2002 11:41:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:
> Richard blamed the Woodvilles, but he never dared to
> blame the person who was really at fault: Edward IV himself
I feel that Richard blamed the Woodvilles for it mainly because he held
Edward in very high regard and used the Woodvilles as a scapegoat for
Edward's behavior. Uh, that is right, isn't it? I just read Alison Weir's
book on the princes and that's what she suggested and I know how some
Ricardians feel towards her already so I think I'll stop now lol
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen
willison2001@... writes:
> Richard blamed the Woodvilles, but he never dared to
> blame the person who was really at fault: Edward IV himself
I feel that Richard blamed the Woodvilles for it mainly because he held
Edward in very high regard and used the Woodvilles as a scapegoat for
Edward's behavior. Uh, that is right, isn't it? I just read Alison Weir's
book on the princes and that's what she suggested and I know how some
Ricardians feel towards her already so I think I'll stop now lol
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-27 21:57:37
willison2001 <willison2001@...>27/12/2002
17:40willison2001@...
In reply, I notice that Mancini said that Edward 'in food and
drink...most immoderate.' There's no prizes for guessing what type
of
drink was referred to. He also says 'he was licentious in the
extreme...to numerous women.' ...whether 'married or unmarried.' He
bought them, promised more, had his way with them then dumped them.
Sounds a bit like a sex maniac to me. I can see, if this is true,
why
some people felt that he'd frittered his life away with self-abuse &
abuse of power. Richard blamed the Woodvilles, but he never dared to
blame the person who was really at fault: Edward IV himself.
I don't think it a case anymore of "spme people" thinking this, but rather
most.
His grandson went the same way but somehow survived to a later age before it
got the better of him. But Edward was heading in the direction of obesity
and megolomania that Henry 8 achieved in his late fourties.
Paul
17:40willison2001@...
In reply, I notice that Mancini said that Edward 'in food and
drink...most immoderate.' There's no prizes for guessing what type
of
drink was referred to. He also says 'he was licentious in the
extreme...to numerous women.' ...whether 'married or unmarried.' He
bought them, promised more, had his way with them then dumped them.
Sounds a bit like a sex maniac to me. I can see, if this is true,
why
some people felt that he'd frittered his life away with self-abuse &
abuse of power. Richard blamed the Woodvilles, but he never dared to
blame the person who was really at fault: Edward IV himself.
I don't think it a case anymore of "spme people" thinking this, but rather
most.
His grandson went the same way but somehow survived to a later age before it
got the better of him. But Edward was heading in the direction of obesity
and megolomania that Henry 8 achieved in his late fourties.
Paul
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 00:09:49
That is an interesting view. Clarence and the Duke of
Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard not
facing his family demons.
Dora
--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Richard blamed the Woodvilles, but
> he never dared to
> blame the person who was really at fault: Edward IV
> himself.
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard not
facing his family demons.
Dora
--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Richard blamed the Woodvilles, but
> he never dared to
> blame the person who was really at fault: Edward IV
> himself.
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 04:56:59
Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
else?
--- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
Duke of<BR>
Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
not<BR>
facing his family demons.<BR>
<BR>
Dora<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--- "willison2001
<willison2001@...>"<BR>
<willison2001@...> wrote:<BR>
> Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
but<BR>
> he never dared to <BR>
> blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
IV<BR>
> himself.<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now.<BR>
<a
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
</tt>
<br>
<tt>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
[email protected]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
else?
--- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
Duke of<BR>
Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
not<BR>
facing his family demons.<BR>
<BR>
Dora<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--- "willison2001
<willison2001@...>"<BR>
<willison2001@...> wrote:<BR>
> Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
but<BR>
> he never dared to <BR>
> blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
IV<BR>
> himself.<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now.<BR>
<a
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
</tt>
<br>
<tt>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
[email protected]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 15:52:32
David wrote:
"it's possible that
Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
during his life."
I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the French -
Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the money
and run!
It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself around
a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though we
would like to.
But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
Janet
--- In , DAVID WILLISON
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> else?
>
> --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> Duke of<BR>
> Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> not<BR>
> facing his family demons.<BR>
> <BR>
> Dora<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> --- "willison2001
> willison2001@y..."<BR>
> willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> but<BR>
> > he never dared to <BR>
> > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> IV<BR>
> > himself.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> __________________________________________________<BR>
> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.<BR>
> <a
> href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> </tt>
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> [email protected]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
"it's possible that
Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
during his life."
I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the French -
Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the money
and run!
It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself around
a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though we
would like to.
But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
Janet
--- In , DAVID WILLISON
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> else?
>
> --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> Duke of<BR>
> Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> not<BR>
> facing his family demons.<BR>
> <BR>
> Dora<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> --- "willison2001
> willison2001@y..."<BR>
> willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> but<BR>
> > he never dared to <BR>
> > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> IV<BR>
> > himself.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> __________________________________________________<BR>
> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.<BR>
> <a
> href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> </tt>
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> [email protected]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 16:28:35
Some writers feel that Richard went along with Edward over the
demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted. Clarence ended up
dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along with Edward & his
bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten the French
while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no intention of
REALLY falling out with Edward.
Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with Edward leading and
probably
greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles, Hastings, the
Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time, in hopeless
situations. When Richard came up against Tudor/Stanley in open
battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was cowardly exactly,
but opportunistic, no doubt.
--- In , "Janet
<forevere@c...>"
<forevere@c...> wrote:
> David wrote:
> "it's possible that
> Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> during his life."
> I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
> Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
> eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the French
-
> Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the
money
> and run!
> It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
> interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
> practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself
around
> a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
> interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though we
> would like to.
> But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
> --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> > escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> > people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> > else?
> >
> > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > <HR>
> > <html><body>
> >
> >
> > <tt>
> > That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> > Duke of<BR>
> > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > not<BR>
> > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > Dora<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > --- "willison2001
> > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > but<BR>
> > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> > IV<BR>
> > > himself.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > __________________________________________________<BR>
> > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > now.<BR>
> > <a
> > href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > </tt>
> >
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > [email protected]<BR>
> > <BR>
> > </tt>
> > <br>
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > </br>
> >
> > </body></html>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted. Clarence ended up
dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along with Edward & his
bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten the French
while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no intention of
REALLY falling out with Edward.
Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with Edward leading and
probably
greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles, Hastings, the
Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time, in hopeless
situations. When Richard came up against Tudor/Stanley in open
battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was cowardly exactly,
but opportunistic, no doubt.
--- In , "Janet
<forevere@c...>"
<forevere@c...> wrote:
> David wrote:
> "it's possible that
> Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> during his life."
> I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
> Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
> eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the French
-
> Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the
money
> and run!
> It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
> interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
> practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself
around
> a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
> interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though we
> would like to.
> But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
> --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> > escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> > people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> > else?
> >
> > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > <HR>
> > <html><body>
> >
> >
> > <tt>
> > That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> > Duke of<BR>
> > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > not<BR>
> > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > Dora<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > --- "willison2001
> > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > but<BR>
> > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> > IV<BR>
> > > himself.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > __________________________________________________<BR>
> > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > now.<BR>
> > <a
> > href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > </tt>
> >
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > [email protected]<BR>
> > <BR>
> > </tt>
> > <br>
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > </br>
> >
> > </body></html>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Psychological interpretations
2002-12-28 16:35:04
It's the 21st century mind trying to interpret 15th century minds. I
think standards of morality are constant. Murder and war have been
roundly condemned by the great religions throughout time. Even George
Bush has critics over his warmongering. Richard has been continually
criticised from the 15th century on for his dubious behaviour.
--- In , "Janet <forevere@c...>"
<forevere@c...> wrote:
> David wrote:
> "it's possible that
> Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> during his life."
> I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
> Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
> eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the French
-
> Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the money
> and run!
> It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
> interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
> practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself around
> a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
> interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though we
> would like to.
> But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
> --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> > escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> > people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> > else?
> >
> > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > <HR>
> > <html><body>
> >
> >
> > <tt>
> > That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> > Duke of<BR>
> > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > not<BR>
> > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > Dora<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > --- "willison2001
> > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > but<BR>
> > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> > IV<BR>
> > > himself.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > __________________________________________________<BR>
> > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > now.<BR>
> > <a
> > href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > </tt>
> >
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > [email protected]<BR>
> > <BR>
> > </tt>
> > <br>
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > </br>
> >
> > </body></html>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
think standards of morality are constant. Murder and war have been
roundly condemned by the great religions throughout time. Even George
Bush has critics over his warmongering. Richard has been continually
criticised from the 15th century on for his dubious behaviour.
--- In , "Janet <forevere@c...>"
<forevere@c...> wrote:
> David wrote:
> "it's possible that
> Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> during his life."
> I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
> Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
> eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the French
-
> Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the money
> and run!
> It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
> interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
> practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself around
> a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
> interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though we
> would like to.
> But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
> --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> > escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> > people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> > else?
> >
> > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > <HR>
> > <html><body>
> >
> >
> > <tt>
> > That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> > Duke of<BR>
> > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > not<BR>
> > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > Dora<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > --- "willison2001
> > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > but<BR>
> > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> > IV<BR>
> > > himself.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > __________________________________________________<BR>
> > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > now.<BR>
> > <a
> > href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > </tt>
> >
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > [email protected]<BR>
> > <BR>
> > </tt>
> > <br>
> >
> > <br>
> > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > </br>
> >
> > </body></html>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 17:10:53
David wrote:
"Some writers feel that Richard went along with Edward over the
demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted. Clarence ended up
dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along with Edward & his
bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten the French
while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no intention of
REALLY falling out with Edward."
Which writers feel Richard "went along" with Edward? Edward was
King after all, and if he could get rid of one brother, he could get
rid of two!
Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's bellicose
remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your statement, or is it
just your interpretation?
I am surprised at your inference of cowardice on the part of
Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was brave.
Janet
-
-- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Some writers feel that Richard went along with Edward over the
> demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted. Clarence ended
up
> dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along with Edward &
his
> bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten the French
> while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no intention of
> REALLY falling out with Edward.
>
> Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with Edward leading and
> probably
> greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
>
> Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time, in hopeless
> situations. When Richard came up against Tudor/Stanley in open
> battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was cowardly
exactly,
> but opportunistic, no doubt.
>
> --- In , "Janet
> <forevere@c...>"
> <forevere@c...> wrote:
> > David wrote:
> > "it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life."
> > I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
> > Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
> > eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the
French
> -
> > Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the
> money
> > and run!
> > It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
> > interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
> > practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself
> around
> > a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
> > interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though
we
> > would like to.
> > But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> > > escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> > > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > > during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> > > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> > > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> > > people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> > > else?
> > >
> > > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > <HR>
> > > <html><body>
> > >
> > >
> > > <tt>
> > > That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> > > Duke of<BR>
> > > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > > not<BR>
> > > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > Dora<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > --- "willison2001
> > > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > > but<BR>
> > > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> > > IV<BR>
> > > > himself.<BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > __________________________________________________<BR>
> > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > > now.<BR>
> > > <a
> > >
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > > </tt>
> > >
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > > [email protected]<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > </tt>
> > > <br>
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > </br>
> > >
> > > </body></html>
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
"Some writers feel that Richard went along with Edward over the
demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted. Clarence ended up
dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along with Edward & his
bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten the French
while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no intention of
REALLY falling out with Edward."
Which writers feel Richard "went along" with Edward? Edward was
King after all, and if he could get rid of one brother, he could get
rid of two!
Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's bellicose
remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your statement, or is it
just your interpretation?
I am surprised at your inference of cowardice on the part of
Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was brave.
Janet
-
-- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Some writers feel that Richard went along with Edward over the
> demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted. Clarence ended
up
> dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along with Edward &
his
> bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten the French
> while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no intention of
> REALLY falling out with Edward.
>
> Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with Edward leading and
> probably
> greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
>
> Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time, in hopeless
> situations. When Richard came up against Tudor/Stanley in open
> battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was cowardly
exactly,
> but opportunistic, no doubt.
>
> --- In , "Janet
> <forevere@c...>"
> <forevere@c...> wrote:
> > David wrote:
> > "it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life."
> > I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
> > Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
> > eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the
French
> -
> > Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the
> money
> > and run!
> > It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
> > interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
> > practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself
> around
> > a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
> > interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though
we
> > would like to.
> > But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> > > escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> > > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > > during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> > > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> > > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> > > people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> > > else?
> > >
> > > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > <HR>
> > > <html><body>
> > >
> > >
> > > <tt>
> > > That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> > > Duke of<BR>
> > > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > > not<BR>
> > > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > Dora<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > --- "willison2001
> > > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > > but<BR>
> > > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> > > IV<BR>
> > > > himself.<BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > __________________________________________________<BR>
> > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > > now.<BR>
> > > <a
> > >
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > > </tt>
> > >
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > > [email protected]<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > </tt>
> > > <br>
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > </br>
> > >
> > > </body></html>
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 18:41:50
Charles Ross points out, as one example, that Richard's son was
created Earl Of Salisbury - one of Clarence's titles - 3 days BEFORE
Clarence's death. It's not obvious from this that Richard was all
that bothered about Clarence's death.
In fact, there was a history of dispute between the 2 over the
Warwick lands. You admit that Richard was wary about taking on
Edward in a head to head, because, I think, he knew he would lose.
But Richard didn't mind taking on the young King Edward V, who was in
a weak position, when Edward IV was nicely tucked away.
> Which writers feel Richard "went along" with Edward? Edward was
> King after all, and if he could get rid of one brother, he could
get> rid of two!
You said yourself that Richard made 'sounds' about wanting to fight
the French, but he clearly didn't seem to draw any rebuke over this
from Edward, who had himself threatened invasion, and Richard went on
to do very well under Edward. Edward clearly didn't take any such
remarks seriously.
> Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's bellicose
> remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your statement, or is it
> just your interpretation?
In fact, as shown below, I said that I WOULDN'T say that Richard was
cowardly exactly. I think he was a cunning opportunist. I don't
think Richard's display at Bosworth was all that courageous. He knew
that if he couldn't defeat Tudor, who he obviously so despised, he
was
probably on a slippery slope to nowhere and was in fact cornered. He
had very choice but to fight, which he'd been trained in from an
early
age. A strategic retreat was possible, but Richard probably sensed
his unpopularity, because of the usurpation and the obvious lack of
support for him at Bosworth, so retreat would've been ignominious and
not an option.
>
> I am surprised at your inference of cowardice on the part of
> Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was brave.
>
> Janet
>
> -
>
> -- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Some writers feel that Richard went along with Edward over the
> > demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted. Clarence ended
> up
> > dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along with Edward &
> his
> > bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten the French
> > while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no intention of
> > REALLY falling out with Edward.
> >
> > Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with Edward leading and
> > probably
> > greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
> >
> > Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> > Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time, in hopeless
> > situations. When Richard came up against Tudor/Stanley in open
> > battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was cowardly
> exactly,
> > but opportunistic, no doubt.
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
created Earl Of Salisbury - one of Clarence's titles - 3 days BEFORE
Clarence's death. It's not obvious from this that Richard was all
that bothered about Clarence's death.
In fact, there was a history of dispute between the 2 over the
Warwick lands. You admit that Richard was wary about taking on
Edward in a head to head, because, I think, he knew he would lose.
But Richard didn't mind taking on the young King Edward V, who was in
a weak position, when Edward IV was nicely tucked away.
> Which writers feel Richard "went along" with Edward? Edward was
> King after all, and if he could get rid of one brother, he could
get> rid of two!
You said yourself that Richard made 'sounds' about wanting to fight
the French, but he clearly didn't seem to draw any rebuke over this
from Edward, who had himself threatened invasion, and Richard went on
to do very well under Edward. Edward clearly didn't take any such
remarks seriously.
> Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's bellicose
> remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your statement, or is it
> just your interpretation?
In fact, as shown below, I said that I WOULDN'T say that Richard was
cowardly exactly. I think he was a cunning opportunist. I don't
think Richard's display at Bosworth was all that courageous. He knew
that if he couldn't defeat Tudor, who he obviously so despised, he
was
probably on a slippery slope to nowhere and was in fact cornered. He
had very choice but to fight, which he'd been trained in from an
early
age. A strategic retreat was possible, but Richard probably sensed
his unpopularity, because of the usurpation and the obvious lack of
support for him at Bosworth, so retreat would've been ignominious and
not an option.
>
> I am surprised at your inference of cowardice on the part of
> Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was brave.
>
> Janet
>
> -
>
> -- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Some writers feel that Richard went along with Edward over the
> > demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted. Clarence ended
> up
> > dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along with Edward &
> his
> > bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten the French
> > while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no intention of
> > REALLY falling out with Edward.
> >
> > Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with Edward leading and
> > probably
> > greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
> >
> > Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> > Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time, in hopeless
> > situations. When Richard came up against Tudor/Stanley in open
> > battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was cowardly
> exactly,
> > but opportunistic, no doubt.
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 23:23:25
Being very religious can simply mean one is
emotionally intense, which Richard and all his family
certainly were. However what I know so far of his
religious style suggests to me that he was neurotic.
One style of neuroticism that typifies the closet
queen that I wrote about when trying to figure out
what is wrong with Richard's looks in the painting, is
that they split themselves from their emotional lives
and project all of the healthier aspects of their
sexuality, of which spirituality is one, onto another
dimension - and then pour their hearts into it,
atleast in their religious lives. But their
religious style seriously brings to mind S & M. It's
an extremely melodramatic and ritualized style, and
nowhere does Jesus do more weeping and bleeding. When
Mary and all the saints get into it, together with
lace, candles and incense, one can only say, Help! I
knew a minister, he was in charge for a time of the
church my father was pastor of when I was a child, who
would meekly tell his household guests (cathedral
closet queens from Albany) how careless and bad he was
as a housekeeper, and then he did the whole ultra-high
Anglican routine in church. It was so bizarre and
depressing that by the time the service was over I was
in tears. I went to visit him, as a former
minister's daughter, after church, and told him I (at
the time) did not think Jesus was the son of God. He
practically beat his chest telling me that then I
believe he is a liar! I just excused myself as well
as I could and got out of there.
I'm pretty certain something seriously emotionally
ailed Richard, I'm just not sure what.
I'm looking forward to what I find out in that book.
Dora
--- DAVID WILLISON <willison2001@...> wrote:
> Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean
> very
> escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth
> (or
> was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out
> Buckingham
> were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> else?
>
> --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote:
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> Duke of<BR>
> Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> not<BR>
> facing his family demons.<BR>
> <BR>
> Dora<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> --- "willison2001
> <willison2001@...>"<BR>
> <willison2001@...> wrote:<BR>
> > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> but<BR>
> > he never dared to <BR>
> > blame the person who was really at fault:
> Edward
> IV<BR>
> > himself.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
>
__________________________________________________<BR>
> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.<BR>
> <a
>
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> </tt>
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:<BR>
>
[email protected]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo!
> Terms
> of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
emotionally intense, which Richard and all his family
certainly were. However what I know so far of his
religious style suggests to me that he was neurotic.
One style of neuroticism that typifies the closet
queen that I wrote about when trying to figure out
what is wrong with Richard's looks in the painting, is
that they split themselves from their emotional lives
and project all of the healthier aspects of their
sexuality, of which spirituality is one, onto another
dimension - and then pour their hearts into it,
atleast in their religious lives. But their
religious style seriously brings to mind S & M. It's
an extremely melodramatic and ritualized style, and
nowhere does Jesus do more weeping and bleeding. When
Mary and all the saints get into it, together with
lace, candles and incense, one can only say, Help! I
knew a minister, he was in charge for a time of the
church my father was pastor of when I was a child, who
would meekly tell his household guests (cathedral
closet queens from Albany) how careless and bad he was
as a housekeeper, and then he did the whole ultra-high
Anglican routine in church. It was so bizarre and
depressing that by the time the service was over I was
in tears. I went to visit him, as a former
minister's daughter, after church, and told him I (at
the time) did not think Jesus was the son of God. He
practically beat his chest telling me that then I
believe he is a liar! I just excused myself as well
as I could and got out of there.
I'm pretty certain something seriously emotionally
ailed Richard, I'm just not sure what.
I'm looking forward to what I find out in that book.
Dora
--- DAVID WILLISON <willison2001@...> wrote:
> Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean
> very
> escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth
> (or
> was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out
> Buckingham
> were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> else?
>
> --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote:
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> Duke of<BR>
> Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> not<BR>
> facing his family demons.<BR>
> <BR>
> Dora<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> --- "willison2001
> <willison2001@...>"<BR>
> <willison2001@...> wrote:<BR>
> > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> but<BR>
> > he never dared to <BR>
> > blame the person who was really at fault:
> Edward
> IV<BR>
> > himself.<BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> > <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
>
__________________________________________________<BR>
> Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.<BR>
> <a
>
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> </tt>
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:<BR>
>
[email protected]<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo!
> Terms
> of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 23:28:35
It is true that there's no evidence that Richard had
any role in Clarence's death. I'm not up on the
specific evidence that he outright opposed it, but
many think that he did.
It is pretty clear that Richard did not think his
brother Edward was a saint. But there is no way he
could have taken up with Buckingham if he had faced
the nature of Clarence's problems. His religious
style is definitely that of someone who did face some
kind of demon somewhere.
Dora
--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Some writers feel that Richard went along with
> Edward over the
> demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted.
> Clarence ended up
> dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along
> with Edward & his
> bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten
> the French
> while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no
> intention of
> REALLY falling out with Edward.
>
> Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with Edward
> leading and
> probably
> greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
>
> Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles,
> Hastings, the
> Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time,
> in hopeless
> situations. When Richard came up against
> Tudor/Stanley in open
> battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was
> cowardly exactly,
> but opportunistic, no doubt.
>
> --- In ,
> "Janet
> <forevere@c...>"
> <forevere@c...> wrote:
> > David wrote:
> > "it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life."
> > I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward
> in the cast of
> > Clarence - Richard was very much against his
> imprisonment and
> > eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the
> matter of the French
> -
> > Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided
> to take the
> money
> > and run!
> > It is so interesting to hear people's
> "psychological
> > interpretations" of Richard and his
> comtemporaries. It is
> > practically impossible for a 20th century mind to
> wrap itself
> around
> > a 15th century perception of reality. We can't
> judge or even
> > interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards,
> even though we
> > would like to.
> > But it makes for a harmless occupation on a
> winter's day.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> DAVID WILLISON
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may
> mean very
> > > escapist. Despite his evident courage at
> Bosworth (or
> > > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham
> and
> > > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to
> him
> > > during his life. The Woodvilles, very
> unpopular,
> > > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out
> Buckingham
> > > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as
> some
> > > people think or did he feel real fear, like
> everyone
> > > else?
> > >
> > > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > <HR>
> > > <html><body>
> > >
> > >
> > > <tt>
> > > That is an interesting view. Clarence and
> the
> > > Duke of<BR>
> > > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > > not<BR>
> > > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > Dora<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > --- "willison2001
> > > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > > but<BR>
> > > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > > blame the person who was really at fault:
> Edward
> > > IV<BR>
> > > > himself.<BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > >
>
__________________________________________________<BR>
> > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > > now.<BR>
> > > <a
> > >
>
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > > </tt>
> > >
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:<BR>
> > >
>
[email protected]<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > </tt>
> > > <br>
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <a
> > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo!
> Terms
> > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > </br>
> > >
> > > </body></html>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
any role in Clarence's death. I'm not up on the
specific evidence that he outright opposed it, but
many think that he did.
It is pretty clear that Richard did not think his
brother Edward was a saint. But there is no way he
could have taken up with Buckingham if he had faced
the nature of Clarence's problems. His religious
style is definitely that of someone who did face some
kind of demon somewhere.
Dora
--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Some writers feel that Richard went along with
> Edward over the
> demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted.
> Clarence ended up
> dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went along
> with Edward & his
> bellicose remarks may've been designed to frighten
> the French
> while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he had no
> intention of
> REALLY falling out with Edward.
>
> Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with Edward
> leading and
> probably
> greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
>
> Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles,
> Hastings, the
> Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time,
> in hopeless
> situations. When Richard came up against
> Tudor/Stanley in open
> battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was
> cowardly exactly,
> but opportunistic, no doubt.
>
> --- In ,
> "Janet
> <forevere@c...>"
> <forevere@c...> wrote:
> > David wrote:
> > "it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life."
> > I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward
> in the cast of
> > Clarence - Richard was very much against his
> imprisonment and
> > eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the
> matter of the French
> -
> > Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided
> to take the
> money
> > and run!
> > It is so interesting to hear people's
> "psychological
> > interpretations" of Richard and his
> comtemporaries. It is
> > practically impossible for a 20th century mind to
> wrap itself
> around
> > a 15th century perception of reality. We can't
> judge or even
> > interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards,
> even though we
> > would like to.
> > But it makes for a harmless occupation on a
> winter's day.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> DAVID WILLISON
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may
> mean very
> > > escapist. Despite his evident courage at
> Bosworth (or
> > > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham
> and
> > > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to
> him
> > > during his life. The Woodvilles, very
> unpopular,
> > > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out
> Buckingham
> > > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as
> some
> > > people think or did he feel real fear, like
> everyone
> > > else?
> > >
> > > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > <HR>
> > > <html><body>
> > >
> > >
> > > <tt>
> > > That is an interesting view. Clarence and
> the
> > > Duke of<BR>
> > > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > > not<BR>
> > > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > Dora<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > --- "willison2001
> > > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > > but<BR>
> > > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > > blame the person who was really at fault:
> Edward
> > > IV<BR>
> > > > himself.<BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > >
>
__________________________________________________<BR>
> > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > > now.<BR>
> > > <a
> > >
>
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > > </tt>
> > >
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:<BR>
> > >
>
[email protected]<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > </tt>
> > > <br>
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <a
> > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo!
> Terms
> > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > </br>
> > >
> > > </body></html>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Psychological interpretations
2002-12-28 23:32:26
They had manic depressive temperament. So do I. This
is a genetic biochemical trait and not a psychological
one. I'm finding in tracing my ancestors and in
following the stories of European royalty, and of
ancient Greek royalty, that the emotionality and
general behavior of someone with that temperament is
pretty constant over time. How easily one will
actually kill someone varies over time! Royalty with
manic depressive temperaments coming from a feudal
background in a transforming society are
characteristically behind the times in how they handle
themselves. Hercules and the Mycenean kings had the
same problem, and current British royalty has this
problem.
Dora
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
is a genetic biochemical trait and not a psychological
one. I'm finding in tracing my ancestors and in
following the stories of European royalty, and of
ancient Greek royalty, that the emotionality and
general behavior of someone with that temperament is
pretty constant over time. How easily one will
actually kill someone varies over time! Royalty with
manic depressive temperaments coming from a feudal
background in a transforming society are
characteristically behind the times in how they handle
themselves. Hercules and the Mycenean kings had the
same problem, and current British royalty has this
problem.
Dora
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 23:33:43
Physical and emotional bravery aren't the same thing.
Dora
--- >
> I am surprised at your inference of cowardice on
> the part of
> Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was
> brave.
>
> Janet
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Dora
--- >
> I am surprised at your inference of cowardice on
> the part of
> Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was
> brave.
>
> Janet
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-28 23:58:34
That's what Ross argues.
I disagree; I don't interpret much of what Ross cites
the way Ross does.
I particularly don't think it took a coward or a
person who had wanted Clarence's downfall, to fail to
turn down the land that Edward took from Clarence.
This was just a medieval feudal family whose members
tried to get along!
What is bothering me are the man in the portrait, the
statement Richard apparently really made to the twelve
year old prince Edward that the people who had raised
him had killed his father by being immoral and were
playing similar games with him, the general agreement
that Richard supported Clarence and did not share his
brother Edward's distrust of Clarence, and he trusted
the Duke of Buckingham, who was a worse version of
Clarence and who I think is most likely who killed the
princes. And his extremely neurotic religious style.
I actually think that a better and stronger king than
Edward IV would have already executed Clarence long
before. The man seriously needed killing. He was a
traitor, and a threat to the public peace. He led
atleast one serious revolt against Edward that caused
civil war. Edward repeatedly forgave him and he
repeatedly responded by plotting against Edward. This
is pretty well established fact and needs no
interpretation. Ross's "defense" of Clarence, if it
can be called that, is only that Richard was certainly
as bad on account of he was a medieval prince!
Yours,
Dora
--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Charles Ross points out, as one example, that
> Richard's son was
> created Earl Of Salisbury - one of Clarence's titles
> - 3 days BEFORE
> Clarence's death. It's not obvious from this that
> Richard was all
> that bothered about Clarence's death.
>
> In fact, there was a history of dispute between the
> 2 over the
> Warwick lands. You admit that Richard was wary
> about taking on
> Edward in a head to head, because, I think, he knew
> he would lose.
> But Richard didn't mind taking on the young King
> Edward V, who was in
> a weak position, when Edward IV was nicely tucked
> away.
>
> > Which writers feel Richard "went along" with
> Edward? Edward was
> > King after all, and if he could get rid of one
> brother, he could
> get> rid of two!
>
> You said yourself that Richard made 'sounds' about
> wanting to fight
> the French, but he clearly didn't seem to draw any
> rebuke over this
> from Edward, who had himself threatened invasion,
> and Richard went on
> to do very well under Edward. Edward clearly didn't
> take any such
> remarks seriously.
>
> > Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's
> bellicose
> > remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your
> statement, or is it
> > just your interpretation?
>
> In fact, as shown below, I said that I WOULDN'T say
> that Richard was
> cowardly exactly. I think he was a cunning
> opportunist. I don't
> think Richard's display at Bosworth was all that
> courageous. He knew
> that if he couldn't defeat Tudor, who he obviously
> so despised, he
> was
> probably on a slippery slope to nowhere and was in
> fact cornered. He
> had very choice but to fight, which he'd been
> trained in from an
> early
> age. A strategic retreat was possible, but Richard
> probably sensed
> his unpopularity, because of the usurpation and the
> obvious lack of
> support for him at Bosworth, so retreat would've
> been ignominious and
> not an option.
> >
> > I am surprised at your inference of cowardice
> on the part of
> > Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was
> brave.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> > -
> >
> > -- In ,
> "willison2001
> > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Some writers feel that Richard went along with
> Edward over the
> > > demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted.
> Clarence ended
> > up
> > > dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went
> along with Edward &
> > his
> > > bellicose remarks may've been designed to
> frighten the French
> > > while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he
> had no intention of
> > > REALLY falling out with Edward.
> > >
> > > Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with
> Edward leading and
> > > probably
> > > greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
> > >
> > > Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the
> Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> > > Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the
> time, in hopeless
> > > situations. When Richard came up against
> Tudor/Stanley in open
> > > battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard
> was cowardly
> > exactly,
> > > but opportunistic, no doubt.
> > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
I disagree; I don't interpret much of what Ross cites
the way Ross does.
I particularly don't think it took a coward or a
person who had wanted Clarence's downfall, to fail to
turn down the land that Edward took from Clarence.
This was just a medieval feudal family whose members
tried to get along!
What is bothering me are the man in the portrait, the
statement Richard apparently really made to the twelve
year old prince Edward that the people who had raised
him had killed his father by being immoral and were
playing similar games with him, the general agreement
that Richard supported Clarence and did not share his
brother Edward's distrust of Clarence, and he trusted
the Duke of Buckingham, who was a worse version of
Clarence and who I think is most likely who killed the
princes. And his extremely neurotic religious style.
I actually think that a better and stronger king than
Edward IV would have already executed Clarence long
before. The man seriously needed killing. He was a
traitor, and a threat to the public peace. He led
atleast one serious revolt against Edward that caused
civil war. Edward repeatedly forgave him and he
repeatedly responded by plotting against Edward. This
is pretty well established fact and needs no
interpretation. Ross's "defense" of Clarence, if it
can be called that, is only that Richard was certainly
as bad on account of he was a medieval prince!
Yours,
Dora
--- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
<willison2001@...> wrote:
> Charles Ross points out, as one example, that
> Richard's son was
> created Earl Of Salisbury - one of Clarence's titles
> - 3 days BEFORE
> Clarence's death. It's not obvious from this that
> Richard was all
> that bothered about Clarence's death.
>
> In fact, there was a history of dispute between the
> 2 over the
> Warwick lands. You admit that Richard was wary
> about taking on
> Edward in a head to head, because, I think, he knew
> he would lose.
> But Richard didn't mind taking on the young King
> Edward V, who was in
> a weak position, when Edward IV was nicely tucked
> away.
>
> > Which writers feel Richard "went along" with
> Edward? Edward was
> > King after all, and if he could get rid of one
> brother, he could
> get> rid of two!
>
> You said yourself that Richard made 'sounds' about
> wanting to fight
> the French, but he clearly didn't seem to draw any
> rebuke over this
> from Edward, who had himself threatened invasion,
> and Richard went on
> to do very well under Edward. Edward clearly didn't
> take any such
> remarks seriously.
>
> > Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's
> bellicose
> > remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your
> statement, or is it
> > just your interpretation?
>
> In fact, as shown below, I said that I WOULDN'T say
> that Richard was
> cowardly exactly. I think he was a cunning
> opportunist. I don't
> think Richard's display at Bosworth was all that
> courageous. He knew
> that if he couldn't defeat Tudor, who he obviously
> so despised, he
> was
> probably on a slippery slope to nowhere and was in
> fact cornered. He
> had very choice but to fight, which he'd been
> trained in from an
> early
> age. A strategic retreat was possible, but Richard
> probably sensed
> his unpopularity, because of the usurpation and the
> obvious lack of
> support for him at Bosworth, so retreat would've
> been ignominious and
> not an option.
> >
> > I am surprised at your inference of cowardice
> on the part of
> > Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was
> brave.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> > -
> >
> > -- In ,
> "willison2001
> > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Some writers feel that Richard went along with
> Edward over the
> > > demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted.
> Clarence ended
> > up
> > > dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went
> along with Edward &
> > his
> > > bellicose remarks may've been designed to
> frighten the French
> > > while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he
> had no intention of
> > > REALLY falling out with Edward.
> > >
> > > Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with
> Edward leading and
> > > probably
> > > greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
> > >
> > > Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the
> Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> > > Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the
> time, in hopeless
> > > situations. When Richard came up against
> Tudor/Stanley in open
> > > battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard
> was cowardly
> > exactly,
> > > but opportunistic, no doubt.
> > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Richard III's character.
2002-12-29 00:40:13
I find it difficult to believe that Richard wept on his pillow over
the death of Clarence. They'd publicly argued about carving up
Warwick's land previously and Edward intervened. If Richard did
object to Clarence's death it may've been due to the threat that it
posed to himself as another brother. Richard also didn't recognise
Clarence's son's title to the Crown, which, if he'd been so
desperately concerned about Clarence, he could've done.
On a personal note, I'm sorry if you've suffered from a genetic
complaint. As a dead friend was always quoting:
'Life is a bitch & then you die!'
Richard's nueroticism as evidenced by his nervous pinched face may've
been due to the suppression of his feelings during the reign of his
bullying older brother, who was 6 foot 6 inched ( when his tomb was
opened), volatile (probably induced by alcohol) with a tendency to
violence, as H6, his son, Warwick, Monatague & Clarence & many others
found out.
Extremely religious people probably are escaping from a reality which
they find frightening. Richard's reality was frightening with the
amount of slaughter which surrounded his life from an early age to
his
own bloody death at 33.
--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> That's what Ross argues.
>
> I disagree; I don't interpret much of what Ross cites
> the way Ross does.
>
> I particularly don't think it took a coward or a
> person who had wanted Clarence's downfall, to fail to
> turn down the land that Edward took from Clarence.
> This was just a medieval feudal family whose members
> tried to get along!
>
> What is bothering me are the man in the portrait, the
> statement Richard apparently really made to the twelve
> year old prince Edward that the people who had raised
> him had killed his father by being immoral and were
> playing similar games with him, the general agreement
> that Richard supported Clarence and did not share his
> brother Edward's distrust of Clarence, and he trusted
> the Duke of Buckingham, who was a worse version of
> Clarence and who I think is most likely who killed the
> princes. And his extremely neurotic religious style.
>
> I actually think that a better and stronger king than
> Edward IV would have already executed Clarence long
> before. The man seriously needed killing. He was a
> traitor, and a threat to the public peace. He led
> atleast one serious revolt against Edward that caused
> civil war. Edward repeatedly forgave him and he
> repeatedly responded by plotting against Edward. This
> is pretty well established fact and needs no
> interpretation. Ross's "defense" of Clarence, if it
> can be called that, is only that Richard was certainly
> as bad on account of he was a medieval prince!
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Charles Ross points out, as one example, that
> > Richard's son was
> > created Earl Of Salisbury - one of Clarence's titles
> > - 3 days BEFORE
> > Clarence's death. It's not obvious from this that
> > Richard was all
> > that bothered about Clarence's death.
> >
> > In fact, there was a history of dispute between the
> > 2 over the
> > Warwick lands. You admit that Richard was wary
> > about taking on
> > Edward in a head to head, because, I think, he knew
> > he would lose.
> > But Richard didn't mind taking on the young King
> > Edward V, who was in
> > a weak position, when Edward IV was nicely tucked
> > away.
> >
> > > Which writers feel Richard "went along" with
> > Edward? Edward was
> > > King after all, and if he could get rid of one
> > brother, he could
> > get> rid of two!
> >
> > You said yourself that Richard made 'sounds' about
> > wanting to fight
> > the French, but he clearly didn't seem to draw any
> > rebuke over this
> > from Edward, who had himself threatened invasion,
> > and Richard went on
> > to do very well under Edward. Edward clearly didn't
> > take any such
> > remarks seriously.
> >
> > > Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's
> > bellicose
> > > remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your
> > statement, or is it
> > > just your interpretation?
> >
> > In fact, as shown below, I said that I WOULDN'T say
> > that Richard was
> > cowardly exactly. I think he was a cunning
> > opportunist. I don't
> > think Richard's display at Bosworth was all that
> > courageous. He knew
> > that if he couldn't defeat Tudor, who he obviously
> > so despised, he
> > was
> > probably on a slippery slope to nowhere and was in
> > fact cornered. He
> > had very choice but to fight, which he'd been
> > trained in from an
> > early
> > age. A strategic retreat was possible, but Richard
> > probably sensed
> > his unpopularity, because of the usurpation and the
> > obvious lack of
> > support for him at Bosworth, so retreat would've
> > been ignominious and
> > not an option.
> > >
> > > I am surprised at your inference of cowardice
> > on the part of
> > > Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was
> > brave.
> > >
> > > Janet
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > -- In ,
> > "willison2001
> > > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > Some writers feel that Richard went along with
> > Edward over the
> > > > demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted.
> > Clarence ended
> > > up
> > > > dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went
> > along with Edward &
> > > his
> > > > bellicose remarks may've been designed to
> > frighten the French
> > > > while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he
> > had no intention of
> > > > REALLY falling out with Edward.
> > > >
> > > > Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with
> > Edward leading and
> > > > probably
> > > > greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the
> > Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> > > > Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the
> > time, in hopeless
> > > > situations. When Richard came up against
> > Tudor/Stanley in open
> > > > battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard
> > was cowardly
> > > exactly,
> > > > but opportunistic, no doubt.
> > > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
the death of Clarence. They'd publicly argued about carving up
Warwick's land previously and Edward intervened. If Richard did
object to Clarence's death it may've been due to the threat that it
posed to himself as another brother. Richard also didn't recognise
Clarence's son's title to the Crown, which, if he'd been so
desperately concerned about Clarence, he could've done.
On a personal note, I'm sorry if you've suffered from a genetic
complaint. As a dead friend was always quoting:
'Life is a bitch & then you die!'
Richard's nueroticism as evidenced by his nervous pinched face may've
been due to the suppression of his feelings during the reign of his
bullying older brother, who was 6 foot 6 inched ( when his tomb was
opened), volatile (probably induced by alcohol) with a tendency to
violence, as H6, his son, Warwick, Monatague & Clarence & many others
found out.
Extremely religious people probably are escaping from a reality which
they find frightening. Richard's reality was frightening with the
amount of slaughter which surrounded his life from an early age to
his
own bloody death at 33.
--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> That's what Ross argues.
>
> I disagree; I don't interpret much of what Ross cites
> the way Ross does.
>
> I particularly don't think it took a coward or a
> person who had wanted Clarence's downfall, to fail to
> turn down the land that Edward took from Clarence.
> This was just a medieval feudal family whose members
> tried to get along!
>
> What is bothering me are the man in the portrait, the
> statement Richard apparently really made to the twelve
> year old prince Edward that the people who had raised
> him had killed his father by being immoral and were
> playing similar games with him, the general agreement
> that Richard supported Clarence and did not share his
> brother Edward's distrust of Clarence, and he trusted
> the Duke of Buckingham, who was a worse version of
> Clarence and who I think is most likely who killed the
> princes. And his extremely neurotic religious style.
>
> I actually think that a better and stronger king than
> Edward IV would have already executed Clarence long
> before. The man seriously needed killing. He was a
> traitor, and a threat to the public peace. He led
> atleast one serious revolt against Edward that caused
> civil war. Edward repeatedly forgave him and he
> repeatedly responded by plotting against Edward. This
> is pretty well established fact and needs no
> interpretation. Ross's "defense" of Clarence, if it
> can be called that, is only that Richard was certainly
> as bad on account of he was a medieval prince!
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@y...>"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Charles Ross points out, as one example, that
> > Richard's son was
> > created Earl Of Salisbury - one of Clarence's titles
> > - 3 days BEFORE
> > Clarence's death. It's not obvious from this that
> > Richard was all
> > that bothered about Clarence's death.
> >
> > In fact, there was a history of dispute between the
> > 2 over the
> > Warwick lands. You admit that Richard was wary
> > about taking on
> > Edward in a head to head, because, I think, he knew
> > he would lose.
> > But Richard didn't mind taking on the young King
> > Edward V, who was in
> > a weak position, when Edward IV was nicely tucked
> > away.
> >
> > > Which writers feel Richard "went along" with
> > Edward? Edward was
> > > King after all, and if he could get rid of one
> > brother, he could
> > get> rid of two!
> >
> > You said yourself that Richard made 'sounds' about
> > wanting to fight
> > the French, but he clearly didn't seem to draw any
> > rebuke over this
> > from Edward, who had himself threatened invasion,
> > and Richard went on
> > to do very well under Edward. Edward clearly didn't
> > take any such
> > remarks seriously.
> >
> > > Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's
> > bellicose
> > > remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your
> > statement, or is it
> > > just your interpretation?
> >
> > In fact, as shown below, I said that I WOULDN'T say
> > that Richard was
> > cowardly exactly. I think he was a cunning
> > opportunist. I don't
> > think Richard's display at Bosworth was all that
> > courageous. He knew
> > that if he couldn't defeat Tudor, who he obviously
> > so despised, he
> > was
> > probably on a slippery slope to nowhere and was in
> > fact cornered. He
> > had very choice but to fight, which he'd been
> > trained in from an
> > early
> > age. A strategic retreat was possible, but Richard
> > probably sensed
> > his unpopularity, because of the usurpation and the
> > obvious lack of
> > support for him at Bosworth, so retreat would've
> > been ignominious and
> > not an option.
> > >
> > > I am surprised at your inference of cowardice
> > on the part of
> > > Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was
> > brave.
> > >
> > > Janet
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > -- In ,
> > "willison2001
> > > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > Some writers feel that Richard went along with
> > Edward over the
> > > > demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted.
> > Clarence ended
> > > up
> > > > dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went
> > along with Edward &
> > > his
> > > > bellicose remarks may've been designed to
> > frighten the French
> > > > while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he
> > had no intention of
> > > > REALLY falling out with Edward.
> > > >
> > > > Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with
> > Edward leading and
> > > > probably
> > > > greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the
> > Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> > > > Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the
> > time, in hopeless
> > > > situations. When Richard came up against
> > Tudor/Stanley in open
> > > > battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard
> > was cowardly
> > > exactly,
> > > > but opportunistic, no doubt.
> > > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-29 01:44:29
There is absolutely no surviving evidence that Richard was particularly
bothered by Clarence's death at all. Most of the modern "traditional" view
of an aggrieved Richard abandoning his brother's apparently Wydeville
dominated court comes primarily from Mancini who was observing and writing
at a time when anti Wydeville sentiment was been promoted by the Government
as Richard moved from Protector to King. The facts don't really bear
Mancini out on it though whatever Hicks might say in his Clarence book the
prime mover behind Clarence's demise was Edward IV who has never struck me
as a man who did everything his wife told him. Richard didn't abandon his
brother's court at all apart from out of duties that kept him from the
centre. As has been pointed out he was probably the greatest beneficiary of
Clarence's fall and was equally happy to attend not long afterwards the
ceremonies that marked the marriage of his nephew the Duke of York &
Norfolk to Anne Mowbray. If he was unhappy with Clarence's death and blamed
the Queen and her family (with whom he had relatively good relations until
after Edward's death) then he was quite a gifted actor maintaining an
impressive performance for 5 years.
As to Clarence himself - well he was rather a popular figure in his youth -
like Edward he had considerable personal charm and style - he was certainly
ambitious. He had done rather well out of the Warwick inheritance compared
to Richard who took less but gained more in terms of political power and
influence. Edward certainly had cause to dispose of his brother after the
readeption however the terms of the attainder of 1477 are rather vague and
it smacks of Edward's own personal tyranny that marked his later years and
if anything it was a combination of Edward's suspicious nature towards the
end and Clarence's own arrogance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <tiggernut24@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV was to blame.
> That's what Ross argues.
>
> I disagree; I don't interpret much of what Ross cites
> the way Ross does.
>
> I particularly don't think it took a coward or a
> person who had wanted Clarence's downfall, to fail to
> turn down the land that Edward took from Clarence.
> This was just a medieval feudal family whose members
> tried to get along!
>
> What is bothering me are the man in the portrait, the
> statement Richard apparently really made to the twelve
> year old prince Edward that the people who had raised
> him had killed his father by being immoral and were
> playing similar games with him, the general agreement
> that Richard supported Clarence and did not share his
> brother Edward's distrust of Clarence, and he trusted
> the Duke of Buckingham, who was a worse version of
> Clarence and who I think is most likely who killed the
> princes. And his extremely neurotic religious style.
>
> I actually think that a better and stronger king than
> Edward IV would have already executed Clarence long
> before. The man seriously needed killing. He was a
> traitor, and a threat to the public peace. He led
> atleast one serious revolt against Edward that caused
> civil war. Edward repeatedly forgave him and he
> repeatedly responded by plotting against Edward. This
> is pretty well established fact and needs no
> interpretation. Ross's "defense" of Clarence, if it
> can be called that, is only that Richard was certainly
> as bad on account of he was a medieval prince!
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
> <willison2001@...> wrote:
> > Charles Ross points out, as one example, that
> > Richard's son was
> > created Earl Of Salisbury - one of Clarence's titles
> > - 3 days BEFORE
> > Clarence's death. It's not obvious from this that
> > Richard was all
> > that bothered about Clarence's death.
> >
> > In fact, there was a history of dispute between the
> > 2 over the
> > Warwick lands. You admit that Richard was wary
> > about taking on
> > Edward in a head to head, because, I think, he knew
> > he would lose.
> > But Richard didn't mind taking on the young King
> > Edward V, who was in
> > a weak position, when Edward IV was nicely tucked
> > away.
> >
> > > Which writers feel Richard "went along" with
> > Edward? Edward was
> > > King after all, and if he could get rid of one
> > brother, he could
> > get> rid of two!
> >
> > You said yourself that Richard made 'sounds' about
> > wanting to fight
> > the French, but he clearly didn't seem to draw any
> > rebuke over this
> > from Edward, who had himself threatened invasion,
> > and Richard went on
> > to do very well under Edward. Edward clearly didn't
> > take any such
> > remarks seriously.
> >
> > > Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's
> > bellicose
> > > remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your
> > statement, or is it
> > > just your interpretation?
> >
> > In fact, as shown below, I said that I WOULDN'T say
> > that Richard was
> > cowardly exactly. I think he was a cunning
> > opportunist. I don't
> > think Richard's display at Bosworth was all that
> > courageous. He knew
> > that if he couldn't defeat Tudor, who he obviously
> > so despised, he
> > was
> > probably on a slippery slope to nowhere and was in
> > fact cornered. He
> > had very choice but to fight, which he'd been
> > trained in from an
> > early
> > age. A strategic retreat was possible, but Richard
> > probably sensed
> > his unpopularity, because of the usurpation and the
> > obvious lack of
> > support for him at Bosworth, so retreat would've
> > been ignominious and
> > not an option.
> > >
> > > I am surprised at your inference of cowardice
> > on the part of
> > > Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was
> > brave.
> > >
> > > Janet
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > -- In ,
> > "willison2001
> > > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > Some writers feel that Richard went along with
> > Edward over the
> > > > demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted.
> > Clarence ended
> > > up
> > > > dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went
> > along with Edward &
> > > his
> > > > bellicose remarks may've been designed to
> > frighten the French
> > > > while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he
> > had no intention of
> > > > REALLY falling out with Edward.
> > > >
> > > > Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with
> > Edward leading and
> > > > probably
> > > > greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the
> > Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> > > > Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the
> > time, in hopeless
> > > > situations. When Richard came up against
> > Tudor/Stanley in open
> > > > battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard
> > was cowardly
> > > exactly,
> > > > but opportunistic, no doubt.
> > > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
bothered by Clarence's death at all. Most of the modern "traditional" view
of an aggrieved Richard abandoning his brother's apparently Wydeville
dominated court comes primarily from Mancini who was observing and writing
at a time when anti Wydeville sentiment was been promoted by the Government
as Richard moved from Protector to King. The facts don't really bear
Mancini out on it though whatever Hicks might say in his Clarence book the
prime mover behind Clarence's demise was Edward IV who has never struck me
as a man who did everything his wife told him. Richard didn't abandon his
brother's court at all apart from out of duties that kept him from the
centre. As has been pointed out he was probably the greatest beneficiary of
Clarence's fall and was equally happy to attend not long afterwards the
ceremonies that marked the marriage of his nephew the Duke of York &
Norfolk to Anne Mowbray. If he was unhappy with Clarence's death and blamed
the Queen and her family (with whom he had relatively good relations until
after Edward's death) then he was quite a gifted actor maintaining an
impressive performance for 5 years.
As to Clarence himself - well he was rather a popular figure in his youth -
like Edward he had considerable personal charm and style - he was certainly
ambitious. He had done rather well out of the Warwick inheritance compared
to Richard who took less but gained more in terms of political power and
influence. Edward certainly had cause to dispose of his brother after the
readeption however the terms of the attainder of 1477 are rather vague and
it smacks of Edward's own personal tyranny that marked his later years and
if anything it was a combination of Edward's suspicious nature towards the
end and Clarence's own arrogance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <tiggernut24@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV was to blame.
> That's what Ross argues.
>
> I disagree; I don't interpret much of what Ross cites
> the way Ross does.
>
> I particularly don't think it took a coward or a
> person who had wanted Clarence's downfall, to fail to
> turn down the land that Edward took from Clarence.
> This was just a medieval feudal family whose members
> tried to get along!
>
> What is bothering me are the man in the portrait, the
> statement Richard apparently really made to the twelve
> year old prince Edward that the people who had raised
> him had killed his father by being immoral and were
> playing similar games with him, the general agreement
> that Richard supported Clarence and did not share his
> brother Edward's distrust of Clarence, and he trusted
> the Duke of Buckingham, who was a worse version of
> Clarence and who I think is most likely who killed the
> princes. And his extremely neurotic religious style.
>
> I actually think that a better and stronger king than
> Edward IV would have already executed Clarence long
> before. The man seriously needed killing. He was a
> traitor, and a threat to the public peace. He led
> atleast one serious revolt against Edward that caused
> civil war. Edward repeatedly forgave him and he
> repeatedly responded by plotting against Edward. This
> is pretty well established fact and needs no
> interpretation. Ross's "defense" of Clarence, if it
> can be called that, is only that Richard was certainly
> as bad on account of he was a medieval prince!
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
> --- "willison2001 <willison2001@...>"
> <willison2001@...> wrote:
> > Charles Ross points out, as one example, that
> > Richard's son was
> > created Earl Of Salisbury - one of Clarence's titles
> > - 3 days BEFORE
> > Clarence's death. It's not obvious from this that
> > Richard was all
> > that bothered about Clarence's death.
> >
> > In fact, there was a history of dispute between the
> > 2 over the
> > Warwick lands. You admit that Richard was wary
> > about taking on
> > Edward in a head to head, because, I think, he knew
> > he would lose.
> > But Richard didn't mind taking on the young King
> > Edward V, who was in
> > a weak position, when Edward IV was nicely tucked
> > away.
> >
> > > Which writers feel Richard "went along" with
> > Edward? Edward was
> > > King after all, and if he could get rid of one
> > brother, he could
> > get> rid of two!
> >
> > You said yourself that Richard made 'sounds' about
> > wanting to fight
> > the French, but he clearly didn't seem to draw any
> > rebuke over this
> > from Edward, who had himself threatened invasion,
> > and Richard went on
> > to do very well under Edward. Edward clearly didn't
> > take any such
> > remarks seriously.
> >
> > > Is that your personal opinion about "Richard's
> > bellicose
> > > remarks"? Do you have evidence to back up your
> > statement, or is it
> > > just your interpretation?
> >
> > In fact, as shown below, I said that I WOULDN'T say
> > that Richard was
> > cowardly exactly. I think he was a cunning
> > opportunist. I don't
> > think Richard's display at Bosworth was all that
> > courageous. He knew
> > that if he couldn't defeat Tudor, who he obviously
> > so despised, he
> > was
> > probably on a slippery slope to nowhere and was in
> > fact cornered. He
> > had very choice but to fight, which he'd been
> > trained in from an
> > early
> > age. A strategic retreat was possible, but Richard
> > probably sensed
> > his unpopularity, because of the usurpation and the
> > obvious lack of
> > support for him at Bosworth, so retreat would've
> > been ignominious and
> > not an option.
> > >
> > > I am surprised at your inference of cowardice
> > on the part of
> > > Richard!! Even his enemies allowed that he was
> > brave.
> > >
> > > Janet
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > -- In ,
> > "willison2001
> > > <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > Some writers feel that Richard went along with
> > Edward over the
> > > > demise of brother Clarence & Richard benefitted.
> > Clarence ended
> > > up
> > > > dead anyway! Again over France, Richard went
> > along with Edward &
> > > his
> > > > bellicose remarks may've been designed to
> > frighten the French
> > > > while, in Richard's usual playacting mode, he
> > had no intention of
> > > > REALLY falling out with Edward.
> > > >
> > > > Richard was OK at Barnet & Tewkesbury with
> > Edward leading and
> > > > probably
> > > > greatly outnumbered the Scots in 1482.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the
> > Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> > > > Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the
> > time, in hopeless
> > > > situations. When Richard came up against
> > Tudor/Stanley in open
> > > > battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard
> > was cowardly
> > > exactly,
> > > > but opportunistic, no doubt.
> > > > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-29 02:10:17
I would agree I think in 1483 Richard saw a great opportunity and he grabbed
it - the only debate is how much of the opportunity did he create. He may
well have believed as the senior surviving male member of the House of
Plantagenet that he had a right both moral and legal to control the realm
whatever Edward IV's will may or may not have said. He had certain
advantages - the Wydeville's political influence in 1483 was at it's weakest
ebb - England did not have a tradition of Queen Dowagers exercising
political power and the landed aristocracy certainly had an aversion to
Queen's dowager or consort influencing political life (which in my view is
why so few people rallied to her in the days after Richard took control of
the boy king rather than her supposed personal unpopularity for which the
only evidence post dates her husband's death or is that propogated by the
aggrieved Warwick during and prior the readeption), her brother Lord River's
was probably the most influential and politically powerful member of the
clan and Richard neutralised him within days, her son Dorset was probably
the most wealthy and landed but seems to have lacked the personality unlike
the York brothers to attract people to his cause. Another advantage was the
difficult and complicated relationship between the Wydeville's and Hastings
which predated the late King's marriage - it was certainly held in check
while Edward lived and they rubbed along well enough together but there was
no way it was necessarily going to survive in the medium term despite ties
of marriage (Dorset was married to Hastings' step daughter Cecily). One
major advantage was the weakness of the English Peers who were regular
council members - the King's Uncle the Earl of Essex died within days of
Edward IV leaving as his heir his half Wydeville grandson - who was a boy,
the remainder were a fairly mixed bunch who probably would follow who came
out of any political battle the strongest. The Council itself for all its
pragmatism after Richard's Coup D'Etat at Stoney Stafford certainly showed
enough distrust with regard the new self proclaimed Protector. The speed
with which minor rebellions, which resulted in one major one in the autumn
of 1483, followed Richard's accession show that there was by no means
universal delight at the removal of Edward V.
Richard was indeed a lucky man in 1483 - no wonder the former Queen Dowager
and members of her family were willing to come to terms in 1484 they had
lost what little chance they had had to unseat him first as Protector and
then as King. Unfortunately for Richard his run of opportunity and luck was
about to run out.
>
> Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time, in hopeless
> situations. When Richard came up against Tudor/Stanley in open
> battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was cowardly exactly,
> but opportunistic, no doubt.
>
> --- In , "Janet
> <forevere@c...>"
> <forevere@c...> wrote:
> > David wrote:
> > "it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life."
> > I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
> > Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
> > eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the French
> -
> > Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the
> money
> > and run!
> > It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
> > interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
> > practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself
> around
> > a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
> > interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though we
> > would like to.
> > But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> > > escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> > > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > > during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> > > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> > > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> > > people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> > > else?
> > >
> > > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > <HR>
> > > <html><body>
> > >
> > >
> > > <tt>
> > > That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> > > Duke of<BR>
> > > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > > not<BR>
> > > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > Dora<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > --- "willison2001
> > > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > > but<BR>
> > > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> > > IV<BR>
> > > > himself.<BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > __________________________________________________<BR>
> > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > > now.<BR>
> > > <a
> > > href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > > </tt>
> > >
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > > [email protected]<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > </tt>
> > > <br>
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > </br>
> > >
> > > </body></html>
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
it - the only debate is how much of the opportunity did he create. He may
well have believed as the senior surviving male member of the House of
Plantagenet that he had a right both moral and legal to control the realm
whatever Edward IV's will may or may not have said. He had certain
advantages - the Wydeville's political influence in 1483 was at it's weakest
ebb - England did not have a tradition of Queen Dowagers exercising
political power and the landed aristocracy certainly had an aversion to
Queen's dowager or consort influencing political life (which in my view is
why so few people rallied to her in the days after Richard took control of
the boy king rather than her supposed personal unpopularity for which the
only evidence post dates her husband's death or is that propogated by the
aggrieved Warwick during and prior the readeption), her brother Lord River's
was probably the most influential and politically powerful member of the
clan and Richard neutralised him within days, her son Dorset was probably
the most wealthy and landed but seems to have lacked the personality unlike
the York brothers to attract people to his cause. Another advantage was the
difficult and complicated relationship between the Wydeville's and Hastings
which predated the late King's marriage - it was certainly held in check
while Edward lived and they rubbed along well enough together but there was
no way it was necessarily going to survive in the medium term despite ties
of marriage (Dorset was married to Hastings' step daughter Cecily). One
major advantage was the weakness of the English Peers who were regular
council members - the King's Uncle the Earl of Essex died within days of
Edward IV leaving as his heir his half Wydeville grandson - who was a boy,
the remainder were a fairly mixed bunch who probably would follow who came
out of any political battle the strongest. The Council itself for all its
pragmatism after Richard's Coup D'Etat at Stoney Stafford certainly showed
enough distrust with regard the new self proclaimed Protector. The speed
with which minor rebellions, which resulted in one major one in the autumn
of 1483, followed Richard's accession show that there was by no means
universal delight at the removal of Edward V.
Richard was indeed a lucky man in 1483 - no wonder the former Queen Dowager
and members of her family were willing to come to terms in 1484 they had
lost what little chance they had had to unseat him first as Protector and
then as King. Unfortunately for Richard his run of opportunity and luck was
about to run out.
>
> Again, I repeat, Richard picked on the Woodvilles, Hastings, the
> Princes and Buckingham who were all, at the time, in hopeless
> situations. When Richard came up against Tudor/Stanley in open
> battle, he flopped. I wouldn't say that Richard was cowardly exactly,
> but opportunistic, no doubt.
>
> --- In , "Janet
> <forevere@c...>"
> <forevere@c...> wrote:
> > David wrote:
> > "it's possible that
> > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > during his life."
> > I beg to differ. Richard "stood up" to Edward in the cast of
> > Clarence - Richard was very much against his imprisonment and
> > eventual death. He also bucked Edward on the matter of the French
> -
> > Richard still wanted to fight when Edward decided to take the
> money
> > and run!
> > It is so interesting to hear people's "psychological
> > interpretations" of Richard and his comtemporaries. It is
> > practically impossible for a 20th century mind to wrap itself
> around
> > a 15th century perception of reality. We can't judge or even
> > interpret Richard's behavior by our own standards, even though we
> > would like to.
> > But it makes for a harmless occupation on a winter's day.
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , DAVID WILLISON
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Hmmm...Richard was very religious, which may mean very
> > > escapist. Despite his evident courage at Bosworth (or
> > > was he stabbed in the back?) it's possible that
> > > Richard was overawed by Clarence & Buckingham and
> > > FRIGHTENED by Edward IV. He never stood up to him
> > > during his life. The Woodvilles, very unpopular,
> > > Hastings at the Council meeting, washed out Buckingham
> > > were sitting ducks! Was Richard as brave as some
> > > people think or did he feel real fear, like everyone
> > > else?
> > >
> > > --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > <HR>
> > > <html><body>
> > >
> > >
> > > <tt>
> > > That is an interesting view. Clarence and the
> > > Duke of<BR>
> > > Buckingham certainly look like a case of Richard
> > > not<BR>
> > > facing his family demons.<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > Dora<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > --- "willison2001
> > > willison2001@y..."<BR>
> > > willison2001@y... wrote:<BR>
> > > > Richard blamed the Woodvilles,
> > > but<BR>
> > > > he never dared to <BR>
> > > > blame the person who was really at fault: Edward
> > > IV<BR>
> > > > himself.<BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > __________________________________________________<BR>
> > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > > now.<BR>
> > > <a
> > > href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
> > > </tt>
> > >
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> > > [email protected]<BR>
> > > <BR>
> > > </tt>
> > > <br>
> > >
> > > <br>
> > > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> > > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
> > > of Service</a>.</tt>
> > > </br>
> > >
> > > </body></html>
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> > > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> > > http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Edward IV was to blame.
2002-12-29 13:44:55
At 03:23 PM 12/28/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Being very religious can simply mean one is
>emotionally intense, which Richard and all his family
>certainly were. However what I know so far of his
>religious style suggests to me that he was neurotic.
Richard's "religious style" is entirely conventional for the period and not
at all out of line with other folks' "religious style" at the time. Most of
the nobility endowed collegiate foundations or chantries, contributed
generously to churches and abbeys, and had personal prayer books -- books
of hours, psalters, etc. If you are arguing at all from what Jonathan
Hughes is saying in his book on Richard III's piety, I suggest you read
Anne Sutton's works on his hours and his books, as well as Livia
Visser-Fuchs' review of an earlier Hughes article tht was the genesis of
his book, for an approprite corrective.
--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
>Being very religious can simply mean one is
>emotionally intense, which Richard and all his family
>certainly were. However what I know so far of his
>religious style suggests to me that he was neurotic.
Richard's "religious style" is entirely conventional for the period and not
at all out of line with other folks' "religious style" at the time. Most of
the nobility endowed collegiate foundations or chantries, contributed
generously to churches and abbeys, and had personal prayer books -- books
of hours, psalters, etc. If you are arguing at all from what Jonathan
Hughes is saying in his book on Richard III's piety, I suggest you read
Anne Sutton's works on his hours and his books, as well as Livia
Visser-Fuchs' review of an earlier Hughes article tht was the genesis of
his book, for an approprite corrective.
--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.