The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV

Hopefully all on the forum who intend to read the above will have done so by now. Id like to discuss Chapter 1 'Poisoned'. In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot! I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead. There would go the goose that laid the golden egg. However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened.
Annette speculates that Elizabeth, wed to Edward 25 yrs,5 years older than E, 45 yrs old, 10 pregnancies later may have lost some of her charm/hold over the king.
Furthermore, the time was getting close to when her son, brought up surrounded by Woodvilles, would come of an age where he would be able to rule himself. Thus she would be able to regain the power that, maybe, she had lost. All makes sense to me.
On to the poisoining and the treatise written by R E Collins. I managed to get hold of a copy of this from the Museum in York....and a very interesting read. Annette gives some interesting quotes from this book if you cant get hold of it. Collins who obviously works in a hospital & has questioned 30 colleagues on the symptoms Edward had when he died. 3 of them came up with the same...arsenic...dispensed in 1 or 2 small doses,
Other illnesses were ruled out, among them stroke, cancer, perforated ulcer, veneral disease, massive coronary amongst them....
Finally is this what Richard had in mind when he wrote his letter to York "We hertelely pray you to come unto us to London......to eide and assiste us ayanst the Quiene...intend to murder us and our cousyn and the OLD ROYALL BLODE OF THIS REALME.....'?

Ugh--Yahoo took me away from this reply and I lost everything, so here's a summary of what I wrote (I hope).

When I first heard the poisoning theory I more or less dismissed it because I thought that Edward IV may have had some fatal health problems given his propensity to overindulge, especially when it came to eating and drinking. This still could be true. But I was convinced by Annette Carson's logic and the Collins reference that this is indeed what could have happened. I don't remember if this was in a later chapter, or if in the first, but she goes on to speculate that because of documented activities that occurred 3-4 weeks before, Anthony Woodville may have well set things up with Lizzie's tacit agreement. She also hints that Richard may have suspected Woodville involvement after the Stony Stafford incident. If so, this would make Richard's insistence of AW's execution all the more understandable. Besides, as Carson pointed out, the council would not have had the authority to order an execution, but as England's Constable, Richard did.

I've just finished Peter Hancock's book: 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower'. For those who don't already know, it's about Hasting's abrupt execution and his theory of why it happened and when Richard decided to go for the brass ring (my colloquialism). IMO, these two books come to somewhat different conclusions about the same time period (although I haven't finished Carson's and suspect her book covers his entire reign). While their conclusions a different, I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I intend to discuss both Hancock's and Carson's books on my blog shortly and would love for anyone here to participate and to add comments to anything already posted.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

"ebatesparrot" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote: ..."Chapter 1 'Poisoned'. In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot! I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead. There would go the goose that laid the golden egg. However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened...."

I'm afraid I remain unconvinced that the Woodvilles poisoned Edward IV. We simply don't know enough about his last illness to rule out everything but poisoning, and if he were poisoned I should have thought French agents would have been the obvious suspects given Edward's fury at the treaty of Arras and the idea current in England that he intended some form of revenge. Louis had a reputation as a poisoner, after all.
I should have though that, after nearly 20 years of marriage, Elizabeth had worked out a way of retaining whatever control she felt she needed without having to keep the sparkle of new love. There is no sign of her waning influence during the 1470s, when Edward was definitely womanising again. Also, there is the question of the codicil Edward added to his will before his death naming Gloucester as Protector. That would have given the Woodvilles a big incentive to keep Edward alive until the Woodville-educated Prince of Wales was old enough to rule in his own right. That codicil must have been made either before Edward took sick, or after he took sick but before the theoretical second fatal dose of arsenic - either way it would have stayed the Woodvilles' hands.
Also, Prince Edward was in London during the parliament that January. If the Queen planned to murder his father, why not keep the boy in London after parliament had broken up, and do the deed whilst the new king was on hand for a quick coronation and Gloucester safely back in the North?

But, in any case, it seems to me that Queen Elizabeth's position was legitimated only by her marriage to the reigning king and she needed to keep him alive as long as possible.

Well, that's my thought on it.

Marie


--- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> Ugh--Yahoo took me away from this reply and I lost everything, so here's a summary of what I wrote (I hope).
>
> When I first heard the poisoning theory I more or less dismissed it because I thought that Edward IV may have had some fatal health problems given his propensity to overindulge, especially when it came to eating and drinking. This still could be true. But I was convinced by Annette Carson's logic and the Collins reference that this is indeed what could have happened. I don't remember if this was in a later chapter, or if in the first, but she goes on to speculate that because of documented activities that occurred 3-4 weeks before, Anthony Woodville may have well set things up with Lizzie's tacit agreement. She also hints that Richard may have suspected Woodville involvement after the Stony Stafford incident. If so, this would make Richard's insistence of AW's execution all the more understandable. Besides, as Carson pointed out, the council would not have had the authority to order an execution, but as England's Constable, Richard did.
>
> I've just finished Peter Hancock's book: 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower'. For those who don't already know, it's about Hasting's abrupt execution and his theory of why it happened and when Richard decided to go for the brass ring (my colloquialism). IMO, these two books come to somewhat different conclusions about the same time period (although I haven't finished Carson's and suspect her book covers his entire reign). While their conclusions a different, I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive.
>
> I intend to discuss both Hancock's and Carson's books on my blog shortly and would love for anyone here to participate and to add comments to anything already posted.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>
> "ebatesparrot" <ebatesparrot@> wrote: ..."Chapter 1 'Poisoned'. In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot! I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead. There would go the goose that laid the golden egg. However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened...."
>

--- In , "ebatesparrot" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Hopefully all on the forum who intend to read the above will have done so by now. Id like to discuss Chapter 1 'Poisoned'. In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot! I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead. There would go the goose that laid the golden egg. However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened.
> Annette speculates that Elizabeth, wed to Edward 25 yrs,5 years older than E, 45 yrs old, 10 pregnancies later may have lost some of her charm/hold over the king.
> Furthermore, the time was getting close to when her son, brought up surrounded by Woodvilles, would come of an age where he would be able to rule himself. Thus she would be able to regain the power that, maybe, she had lost. All makes sense to me.


There isn't much reason to suggest that young Edward was particularly close to his mother. Young Richard, yes -- he had been with his mother and sisters way too long, actually. But Edward had been in his own household at Ludlow, with infrequent sojourns to court, since he was two or three years old.

Margaret Beaufort retained a great deal of influence over her son after his marriage and for the rest of her life, but that does not make a template for every mother of the King.

Besides which Edward was also getting close to the age at which he might take a wife, and that would relegate Elizabeth Woodville to the back seat, behind a possibly teen-aged, possibly headstrong, possibly as manipulative and ambitious as Woodville herself, young woman with whom a teen-aged boy might be completely besotted.

Katy

I am in the middle of Hancock's book. So far it is compelling to me.
Of course, I heard his speech at the AGM in Orlando, so I have been
predisposed.

His argument of "cui bono?" is a strong one. I am impressed with the
research that went into the book - massive notes and appendices. He hasn't
missed a trick. I highly recommend this to any Ricardian.



L.M.L.,

Janet

I find Carson's poisoned chalice metaphor more convincing than the poisoning theory. I've come to believe that Richard would have preferred to live and govern in the north, and that Edward IV's death forced him into a situation he *never* would have created for himself.

I think the Tudor/Shakespeare characature of the ambition-crazed murderer fits Buckingham and Henry Tudor far more closely than Richard. Buckingham and Tudor were sidelined with plenty of time to indulge ambitious daydreams while Richard was busy governing the North.

I'm inclined to believe the doctor's poisoning diagnosis, but I'm not convinced about motivation, which is the main shortcoming in the poisoning theory, IMO. Who could have benefitted by poisoning Edward IV in 1483? Seems like bad timing for the Woodvilles, whose chances would have been better if Edward V were old enough to govern.

Maybe Margaret Beaufort and Morton decided to use Buckingham and Richard as tools to remove Edward IV's sons from Henry Tudor's path to the throne--after Edward IV died. Maybe the Beaufort/Morton team thought that removing Edward IV before his sons reached maturity was the best way to put Henry Tudor on the throne.

But I doubt that the team had a way to poison Edward IV--not once, but twice--to start that chain reaction. Seems to me Beaufort/Morton needed a very dependable poisoner on Edward IV's household staff to succeed. But what would motivate the dependable poisoner?

Marion


--- In , "ebatesparrot" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

> Hopefully all on the forum who intend to read the above will have done so by now. Id like to discuss Chapter 1 'Poisoned'. In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot! I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead. There would go the goose that laid the golden egg. However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened.
> Annette speculates that Elizabeth, wed to Edward 25 yrs,5 years older than E, 45 yrs old, 10 pregnancies later may have lost some of her charm/hold over the king.
> Furthermore, the time was getting close to when her son, brought up surrounded by Woodvilles, would come of an age where he would be able to rule himself. Thus she would be able to regain the power that, maybe, she had lost. All makes sense to me.
> On to the poisoining and the treatise written by R E Collins. I managed to get hold of a copy of this from the Museum in York....and a very interesting read. Annette gives some interesting quotes from this book if you cant get hold of it. Collins who obviously works in a hospital & has questioned 30 colleagues on the symptoms Edward had when he died. 3 of them came up with the same...arsenic...dispensed in 1 or 2 small doses,
> Other illnesses were ruled out, among them stroke, cancer, perforated ulcer, veneral disease, massive coronary amongst them....
> Finally is this what Richard had in mind when he wrote his letter to York "We hertelely pray you to come unto us to London......to eide and assiste us ayanst the Quiene...intend to murder us and our cousyn and the OLD ROYALL BLODE OF THIS REALME.....'?
>

"phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote: "...I'm inclined to believe the doctor's poisoning diagnosis, but I'm not convinced about motivation, which is the main shortcoming in the poisoning theory, IMO. Who could have benefitted by poisoning Edward IV in 1483?..."

I think that's an excellent point, Marion, and I've always been a fan of following the money.

So who would have had the most to gain from EIV's early demise? What about Hastings? Not only was he was the one who alerted Richard, but perhaps he had the most to lose. Maybe he saw his influence and power being undermined by the Woodvilles. Perhaps Hastings tried to get Edward to name himself as protector, but failing that, he then convinced Edward to name Richard. As Carson pointed out, he had the most men.

And then there's the matter of the treasury. What were the Woodvilles planning to do with the money? Raise an army?

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

"RIII; a study in service" is a treasure chest of good information. The author, Rosemary Horrox has found some financial records that suggest the vanished money went to the fleet that was supposed to protect English ships and the coast from French raiders. So the Woodvilles didn't really "raid the treasury." Sir Edward Woodville was in charge of the fleet, and Dorset was one of his deputies. They were responsible for a the funds that paid for the fleet, but it's not quite accurate to say they raided the treasury. It was the undeclared war with France that drained Edward IV's treasury. That money was alloted before Edward IV's death.

But the Woodvilles didn't help their reputation by hiding the fleet along the Kent coast and taking 10,000 pounds from an English ship after Edward IV's death. As protector, Richard ordered Sir Edward Woodville to bring the fleet back to London or be declared an enemy of the state. All but two of the ships in the fleet returned to London after Richard offered pardons. Two ships sailed to exile in Brittany with Sir Edward Woodville and Dorset.

Marion




--- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> "phaecilia" <phaecilia@> wrote: "...I'm inclined to believe the doctor's poisoning diagnosis, but I'm not convinced about motivation, which is the main shortcoming in the poisoning theory, IMO. Who could have benefitted by poisoning Edward IV in 1483?..."
>
> I think that's an excellent point, Marion, and I've always been a fan of following the money.
>
> So who would have had the most to gain from EIV's early demise? What about Hastings? Not only was he was the one who alerted Richard, but perhaps he had the most to lose. Maybe he saw his influence and power being undermined by the Woodvilles. Perhaps Hastings tried to get Edward to name himself as protector, but failing that, he then convinced Edward to name Richard. As Carson pointed out, he had the most men.
>
> And then there's the matter of the treasury. What were the Woodvilles planning to do with the money? Raise an army?
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>

i have not read carson's book yet. does annette discuss the possibility of bishop john morton being a possible source of the poisoning? morton was at edward's bedside during his final days. morton was a lancasterian through and through. he was also a deft viper who knew when to lay low and play the game. which he did during edward's reign. he then became an instrumental part of buckingham's conspiracy and rebellion. later he supported henry tudor causing the demise of richard the third.
 
eventually, morton became one of the borgia pope's cardinals. that alone says a lot about morton's ethics and morals. consider how debauched e4's court was and compare it to the papal debauchery. it is my opinion morton was a quiet and crafty hedonist. it appears this behaviour was de rigueur for almost all of the lords temporal and spiritual of the era.
 
do as i say, not as i do...was the motto and command of the peers to the common people. we have bought the sugar coated version of history. the truth is..the whole era was despotic, comparable to our roaring twenties or the fabulous sixties. if it feels good..do it.
pray for forgiveness after your fun...or buy your way out of hell.
 
chaste damsels and chivalristic knights are figment of the church and government's version of history. the more you read the actual historical documents, the more the truth is revealed.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, ebatesparrot <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:


From: ebatesparrot <ebatesparrot@...>
Subject: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 9:19 AM


Hopefully all on the forum who intend to read the above will have done so by now.  Id like to discuss Chapter 1 'Poisoned'.  In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot!  I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead.  There would go the goose that laid the golden egg.  However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened.
Annette speculates that Elizabeth, wed to Edward 25 yrs,5 years older than E, 45 yrs old, 10 pregnancies later  may have lost some of her charm/hold over the king.
Furthermore, the time was getting close to when her son, brought up surrounded by Woodvilles, would come of an age where he would be able to rule himself.  Thus she would be able to regain the power that, maybe, she had lost. All makes sense to me.
On to the poisoining and the treatise written by R E Collins.  I managed to get hold of a copy of this from the Museum in York....and a very interesting read. Annette gives some interesting quotes from this book if you cant get hold of it.  Collins who obviously works in a hospital & has questioned 30 colleagues on the symptoms Edward had when he died.  3 of them came up with the same...arsenic...dispensed in 1 or 2 small doses,
Other illnesses were ruled out,  among them stroke, cancer, perforated ulcer, veneral disease, massive coronary amongst them....
Finally is this what Richard had in mind when he wrote his letter to York "We hertelely pray you to come unto us to London......to eide and assiste us ayanst the Quiene...intend to murder us and our cousyn and the OLD ROYALL BLODE OF THIS REALME.....'?



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I haven't read Carsons yet either, but am planning to. Would be an interesting idea about Morton, though we'd have to figure why he would have decided to take action when he did as opposed to any other stretch of time he was serving under Edward.

So far as historical perception is concerned, probably no one who's a member of the Richard III Society or who's even glanced through a biography of any of these fifteenth century powerhouses is under any illusion about chaste damsels and chivalric knights; and Borgia certainly wasn't the first or last Pope to indulge in mistresses, riches and the like (in fact, when Cisneros, as Archbisop of Toledo, tried to continue his habits of rather frightening austerity, he was admonished by the Pope to please live within within the luxurious means of the Archbishopfric. He cheated, dressing up nice on the outside and wearing the horsehair shirt underneath, for example).

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: fayre rose
Sent: Sep 3, 2009 10:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV

i have not read carson's book yet. does annette discuss the possibility of bishop john morton being a possible source of the poisoning? morton was at edward's bedside during his final days. morton was a lancasterian through and through. he was also a deft viper who knew when to lay low and play the game. which he did during edward's reign. he then became an instrumental part of buckingham's conspiracy and rebellion. later he supported henry tudor causing the demise of richard the third.

eventually, morton became one of the borgia pope's cardinals. that alone says a lot about morton's ethics and morals. consider how debauched e4's court was and compare it to the papal debauchery. it is my opinion morton was a quiet and crafty hedonist. it appears this behaviour was de rigueur for almost all of the lords temporal and spiritual of the era.

do as i say, not as i do...was the motto and command of the peers to the common people. we have bought the sugar coated version of history. the truth is..the whole era was despotic, comparable to our roaring twenties or the fabulous sixties. if it feels good..do it.
pray for forgiveness after your fun...or buy your way out of hell.

chaste damsels and chivalristic knights are figment of the church and government's version of history. the more you read the actual historical documents, the more the truth is revealed.

roslyn

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, ebatesparrot <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

From: ebatesparrot <ebatesparrot@...>
Subject: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 9:19 AM

Hopefully all on the forum who intend to read the above will have done so by now. Id like to discuss Chapter 1 'Poisoned'. In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot! I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead. There would go the goose that laid the golden egg. However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened.
Annette speculates that Elizabeth, wed to Edward 25 yrs,5 years older than E, 45 yrs old, 10 pregnancies later may have lost some of her charm/hold over the king.
Furthermore, the time was getting close to when her son, brought up surrounded by Woodvilles, would come of an age where he would be able to rule himself. Thus she would be able to regain the power that, maybe, she had lost. All makes sense to me.
On to the poisoining and the treatise written by R E Collins. I managed to get hold of a copy of this from the Museum in York....and a very interesting read. Annette gives some interesting quotes from this book if you cant get hold of it. Collins who obviously works in a hospital & has questioned 30 colleagues on the symptoms Edward had when he died. 3 of them came up with the same...arsenic...dispensed in 1 or 2 small doses,
Other illnesses were ruled out, among them stroke, cancer, perforated ulcer, veneral disease, massive coronary amongst them....
Finally is this what Richard had in mind when he wrote his letter to York "We hertelely pray you to come unto us to London......to eide and assiste us ayanst the Quiene...intend to murder us and our cousyn and the OLD ROYALL BLODE OF THIS REALME.....'?

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

regarding morton...i think you would have to track his movements for several months before edward died. the french had just broken a marriage agreement with edward regarding elizabeth of york. woodville was a cousin of the french king. it is rumoured the french poisoned edward with wine.
 
woodville was probably closer to morton than edward was. she did come from a lancastrian background. morton and hastings did try to usurp the power of r3 when he was protector. they were issuing orders in the name of e5 without richard's knowledge/consent. morton probably played hastings, just like he had done with buckingham.
 
so, carson might be partially correct, but morton was probably behind the death of e4, moreso than woodville. one has to determine what benefit it would be to morton to have e4 dead, and a young king in power.
 
roslyn

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:


From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
Subject: Re: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV
To: ,
Received: Friday, September 4, 2009, 9:04 AM


 



I haven't read Carsons yet either, but am planning to. Would be an interesting idea about Morton, though we'd have to figure why he would have decided to take action when he did as opposed to any other stretch of time he was serving under Edward.

So far as historical perception is concerned, probably no one who's a member of the Richard III Society or who's even glanced through a biography of any of these fifteenth century powerhouses is under any illusion about chaste damsels and chivalric knights; and Borgia certainly wasn't the first or last Pope to indulge in mistresses, riches and the like (in fact, when Cisneros, as Archbisop of Toledo, tried to continue his habits of rather frightening austerity, he was admonished by the Pope to please live within within the luxurious means of the Archbishopfric. He cheated, dressing up nice on the outside and wearing the horsehair shirt underneath, for example).

Maria
elena@pipeline. com

-----Original Message-----
From: fayre rose
Sent: Sep 3, 2009 10:20 PM
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV

i have not read carson's book yet. does annette discuss the possibility of bishop john morton being a possible source of the poisoning? morton was at edward's bedside during his final days. morton was a lancasterian through and through. he was also a deft viper who knew when to lay low and play the game. which he did during edward's reign. he then became an instrumental part of buckingham's conspiracy and rebellion. later he supported henry tudor causing the demise of richard the third.

eventually, morton became one of the borgia pope's cardinals. that alone says a lot about morton's ethics and morals. consider how debauched e4's court was and compare it to the papal debauchery. it is my opinion morton was a quiet and crafty hedonist. it appears this behaviour was de rigueur for almost all of the lords temporal and spiritual of the era.

do as i say, not as i do...was the motto and command of the peers to the common people. we have bought the sugar coated version of history. the truth is..the whole era was despotic, comparable to our roaring twenties or the fabulous sixties. if it feels good..do it.
pray for forgiveness after your fun...or buy your way out of hell.

chaste damsels and chivalristic knights are figment of the church and government's version of history. the more you read the actual historical documents, the more the truth is revealed.

roslyn

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, ebatesparrot <ebatesparrot@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:

From: ebatesparrot <ebatesparrot@ yahoo.co. uk>
Subject: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 9:19 AM

Hopefully all on the forum who intend to read the above will have done so by now. Id like to discuss Chapter 1 'Poisoned'. In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot! I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead. There would go the goose that laid the golden egg. However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened.
Annette speculates that Elizabeth, wed to Edward 25 yrs,5 years older than E, 45 yrs old, 10 pregnancies later may have lost some of her charm/hold over the king.
Furthermore, the time was getting close to when her son, brought up surrounded by Woodvilles, would come of an age where he would be able to rule himself. Thus she would be able to regain the power that, maybe, she had lost. All makes sense to me.
On to the poisoining and the treatise written by R E Collins. I managed to get hold of a copy of this from the Museum in York....and a very interesting read. Annette gives some interesting quotes from this book if you cant get hold of it. Collins who obviously works in a hospital & has questioned 30 colleagues on the symptoms Edward had when he died. 3 of them came up with the same...arsenic. ..dispensed in 1 or 2 small doses,
Other illnesses were ruled out, among them stroke, cancer, perforated ulcer, veneral disease, massive coronary amongst them....
Finally is this what Richard had in mind when he wrote his letter to York "We hertelely pray you to come unto us to London...... to eide and assiste us ayanst the Quiene...intend to murder us and our cousyn and the OLD ROYALL BLODE OF THIS REALME.....' ?

------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I wonder if Morton would ever have intended to have Edward V in power: my take on him is that he probably felt little, if any, loyalty to Edward IV or Edward V, and, to my way of thinking, was planning on supporting Henry Tudor -- there's story in a small bio of Hastings of a comment Hastings in 1482 or so made about Edward IV not likely to live out a year, and the comment being pretty much on the mark. If Edward was doing badly, then Morton would have an incentive to start planning moves to, in his mind, restore the throne to as close to the rightful owners as he could get it.

Now this either pushes aside the poisoning theory or complicates its presence. In my mind, though, if this theory makes any sense, Morton would be more likely to work with Margaret B. than with Lizzie W. -- he might play Lizzie, and at the same time shield himself by going along with Edward V until he would know otherwise.

Hastings seemed bound to lose after Edward's death no matter which way he turned: presuming that Edward V would be more likely to side with his mother's family than with Hastings, there'd be little advancement there (Edward V had been mentored by Anthony Woodville, so I'm guessing his allegiance to the clan would be pretty strong). Buckingham and Richard were pretty much a unit. It may not have been all that difficult for Morton, during May 1483, let's say, to have persuaded Hastings that his best bet for staying in power (as well as keeping those nice little pensions from both France and Burgundy -- a neat trick on Hastings' part, I must say!) would be to get on the side of Tudor.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: fayre rose
Sent: Sep 4, 2009 10:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV





regarding morton...i think you would have to track his movements for several months before edward died. the french had just broken a marriage agreement with edward regarding elizabeth of york. woodville was a cousin of the french king. it is rumoured the french poisoned edward with wine.

woodville was probably closer to morton than edward was. she did come from a lancastrian background. morton and hastings did try to usurp the power of r3 when he was protector. they were issuing orders in the name of e5 without richard's knowledge/consent. morton probably played hastings, just like he had done with buckingham.

so, carson might be partially correct, but morton was probably behind the death of e4, moreso than woodville. one has to determine what benefit it would be to morton to have e4 dead, and a young king in power.

roslyn

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
Subject: Re: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV
To: ,
Received: Friday, September 4, 2009, 9:04 AM



I haven't read Carsons yet either, but am planning to. Would be an interesting idea about Morton, though we'd have to figure why he would have decided to take action when he did as opposed to any other stretch of time he was serving under Edward.

So far as historical perception is concerned, probably no one who's a member of the Richard III Society or who's even glanced through a biography of any of these fifteenth century powerhouses is under any illusion about chaste damsels and chivalric knights; and Borgia certainly wasn't the first or last Pope to indulge in mistresses, riches and the like (in fact, when Cisneros, as Archbisop of Toledo, tried to continue his habits of rather frightening austerity, he was admonished by the Pope to please live within within the luxurious means of the Archbishopfric. He cheated, dressing up nice on the outside and wearing the horsehair shirt underneath, for example).

Maria
elena@pipeline. com

-----Original Message-----
From: fayre rose
Sent: Sep 3, 2009 10:20 PM
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV

i have not read carson's book yet. does annette discuss the possibility of bishop john morton being a possible source of the poisoning? morton was at edward's bedside during his final days. morton was a lancasterian through and through. he was also a deft viper who knew when to lay low and play the game. which he did during edward's reign. he then became an instrumental part of buckingham's conspiracy and rebellion. later he supported henry tudor causing the demise of richard the third.

eventually, morton became one of the borgia pope's cardinals. that alone says a lot about morton's ethics and morals. consider how debauched e4's court was and compare it to the papal debauchery. it is my opinion morton was a quiet and crafty hedonist. it appears this behaviour was de rigueur for almost all of the lords temporal and spiritual of the era.

do as i say, not as i do...was the motto and command of the peers to the common people. we have bought the sugar coated version of history. the truth is..the whole era was despotic, comparable to our roaring twenties or the fabulous sixties. if it feels good..do it.
pray for forgiveness after your fun...or buy your way out of hell.

chaste damsels and chivalristic knights are figment of the church and government's version of history. the more you read the actual historical documents, the more the truth is revealed.

roslyn

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, ebatesparrot <ebatesparrot@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:

From: ebatesparrot <ebatesparrot@ yahoo.co. uk>
Subject: The Maligned King - Death of Edward IV
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 9:19 AM

Hopefully all on the forum who intend to read the above will have done so by now. Id like to discuss Chapter 1 'Poisoned'. In this chapter Annette puts forward reasons for believing that Edward may have been poisoined & by the Woodvilles to boot! I was rather shocked having always thought that Edward would have been the last person the Woodvilles would have wanted dead. There would go the goose that laid the golden egg. However reading on Annette convinced me this may well be the truth of what happened.
Annette speculates that Elizabeth, wed to Edward 25 yrs,5 years older than E, 45 yrs old, 10 pregnancies later may have lost some of her charm/hold over the king.
Furthermore, the time was getting close to when her son, brought up surrounded by Woodvilles, would come of an age where he would be able to rule himself. Thus she would be able to regain the power that, maybe, she had lost. All makes sense to me.
On to the poisoining and the treatise written by R E Collins. I managed to get hold of a copy of this from the Museum in York....and a very interesting read. Annette gives some interesting quotes from this book if you cant get hold of it. Collins who obviously works in a hospital & has questioned 30 colleagues on the symptoms Edward had when he died. 3 of them came up with the same...arsenic. ..dispensed in 1 or 2 small doses,
Other illnesses were ruled out, among them stroke, cancer, perforated ulcer, veneral disease, massive coronary amongst them....
Finally is this what Richard had in mind when he wrote his letter to York "We hertelely pray you to come unto us to London...... to eide and assiste us ayanst the Quiene...intend to murder us and our cousyn and the OLD ROYALL BLODE OF THIS REALME.....' ?

------------ --------- --------- ------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Isn't there a lock of E IV's hair somewhere? Arsenic stays in the hair, so
I understand. It would be interesting to have it tested - but about as
much chance as of having the Bones tested for DNA :-)

Perhaps the hair isn't "owned" by the Queen.?!



Janet

--- In , "Janet Trimbath" <forevere@...> wrote:
>
> Isn't there a lock of E IV's hair somewhere? Arsenic stays in the hair, so
> I understand. It would be interesting to have it tested - but about as
> much chance as of having the Bones tested for DNA :-)
>
> Perhaps the hair isn't "owned" by the Queen.?!
>
>
>
> Janet

A further complication, though, is that arsenic was used in medicine, not only in the middle ages but, believe it or not, until the early 20th century.

If Anne Neville really did have consumption it is quite conceivable she was prescribed arsenic and was literally poisoned with it. If arsenic was found in her hair, imagine what would be said about Richard III!!!

The point I am making is that if Hastings knew Edward was dying, maybe Edward had a disease for which arsenic was prescribed?

Brian W

"brian_yorkist" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote: "A further complication, though, is that arsenic was used in medicine, not only in the middle ages but, believe it or not, until the early 20th century.
>
> If Anne Neville really did have consumption it is quite conceivable she was prescribed arsenic and was literally poisoned with it. If arsenic was found in her hair, imagine what would be said about Richard III!!!
>
> The point I am making is that if Hastings knew Edward was dying, maybe Edward had a disease for which arsenic was prescribed?"

That's an excellent point, Brian. I believe that arsenic was used to "cure" venereal diseases up to the discovery of penicillin, so he could have been accidentally poisoned...twice. He could have exhibited some early stage of an STD for which his physician over zealously prescribed arsenic (perhaps in an attempt to accommodate his weight) and then the second dose was lower, but leathal. It certainly wouldn't be the first or last instance of death by doctor.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

There is a lock of hair at the Society of Antiquaries which back in
the 90s I was actually, unbelievably, given freedom to examine, and I
took it out of the box and held it in my own hands. No gloves, so the
evidence is compromised if it hadn't already been before I got my
hands on it! Did give me a thrill and a chill, though, I must say.
Paul


On 5 Sep 2009, at 16:33, Janet Trimbath wrote:

> Isn't there a lock of E IV's hair somewhere? Arsenic stays in the
> hair, so
> I understand. It would be interesting to have it tested - but
> about as
> much chance as of having the Bones tested for DNA :-)
>
> Perhaps the hair isn't "owned" by the Queen.?!
>
>
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

The hair has already been tested for DNA, with negative results. If I remember rightly, it was cut from Edward's remains when the tomb was opened in the 18th century.
It would not contain arsenic from any deliberate murder, but only from long-term usage - ie arsenic ingested at the time the hair was being formed.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> There is a lock of hair at the Society of Antiquaries which back in
> the 90s I was actually, unbelievably, given freedom to examine, and I
> took it out of the box and held it in my own hands. No gloves, so the
> evidence is compromised if it hadn't already been before I got my
> hands on it! Did give me a thrill and a chill, though, I must say.
> Paul
>
>
> On 5 Sep 2009, at 16:33, Janet Trimbath wrote:
>
> > Isn't there a lock of E IV's hair somewhere? Arsenic stays in the
> > hair, so
> > I understand. It would be interesting to have it tested - but
> > about as
> > much chance as of having the Bones tested for DNA :-)
> >
> > Perhaps the hair isn't "owned" by the Queen.?!
> >
> >
> >
> > Janet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>