Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics

Hi!
I just wanted to introduce myself! I'm a 40-something mediæval
history and art history graduate, currently in reduced circumstances,
but keeping bouncy through cultivating my historical interests.

My interest in Richard goes back a long, long way: alarmingly, longer
than the poor kid's actual lifespan: back to watching 'Second
Verdict' (1976) on TV when I was nearly 11. In my teens, I read
nearly everything I could on the subject, and visited Middleham with
my parents as a treat after my A Levels. (Quite a few of the teachers
at my high school were R3 Soc members! By their cute piggy badges and
necklaces did we know them!) I studied Richard's reign as a special
subject in my second year at university; I also did Honours courses
on his Scottish contemporaries, which is helpful for context.
Richard's reputation problem is baffling in comparison with James II,
whom my tutor  his biographer  described bluntly and, I think,
accurately as "psychopathic". And having a strong interest in 12C
history, especially Outremer politics, I'd also feel a damn sight
safer around Richard III than around Richard I. My interest was
rekindled later last year with the first news about the new work on
the Bosworth site, and I caught up with a lot of reading. I love the
study of portraiture, and was delighted to see the Society of
Antiquaries' pictures have been cleaned! They now look gorgeous
(apart from Edward IV, who serves to demonstrate how standards of
beauty change over time)!

I don't have any particular axe to grind with the characters. If
anything, Jones's 'Bosworth 1485', which I love, although the
topographical side of it must now be set aside, made me warm to
Henry, too. For me, the tragedy of the situation is that two bright,
capable young men, who shared some interests, should have ended up in
a situation where one of them must die for the other to flourish. In
a better time, they might have been friends. They faced some of the
same personal tragedies, too: both losing an heir (though Henry at
least had a spare) and wife, before their own untimely deaths. (If
only Henry had decided to press his stronger claim to France  they
could have had a kingdom each to play with!)

The Tudor I do despise is Edmund. Jones and Underwood call his
motives "brutal and exploitative" in ensuring a life-interest in
Margaret's estates by consummating his marriage without regard for
her (or the future child's) health and welfare; the phrase seems to
sum up the man, too. It makes me boggle at Hicks's bizarre invocation
of "paedophilia" and "the sex offenders' register" about Richard and
the entirely-of-age (and widowed!) Anne: if he wants to attack anyone
for being a child-molester, why doesn't he turn his guns on Edmund?!

Some of Hicks's biographical work I quite like, but he does seem to
'lose it' on controversial areas: comparing Edward V to Anne Frank,
or likening him to Arthur of Brittany as a victim of
"infanticide" (in which case Arthur was a very large, armour-bearing
'infant'!). I do wonder if Weir's influence as series editor affected
his Anne Neville book? I don't have much time for Weir: a BEd is a
useful qualification, but it's not a full training in historical
method and research method, and it shows. Her sneers at academic
history are hardly endearing, either. (My experiences researching and
writing on 12C history and on later Scottish history make me
extremely wary of 'popular' history and its purveyors: I've seen far
too much recycling of now-discredited material in the popular arena 
there seems to be a time-lag of at least 50 years between the
academic and popular in some areas.)

I prefer non-fiction to fiction, but of the novels, my favourite is
Patrick Carleton's 'Under the Hog', outdated though it is in some
areas of interpretation. I don't like to see any of the gang ironed
out into 'romance heroes/heroines', or paired off with Mary-Sues, &
c. Then there are the novelists who present themselves up as
'historians' and come to believe things they've made up& (Shivers.)

More to follow!
best wishes,
Doc M

Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote: "... I just wanted to introduce
myself! I'm a 40-something mediæval
> history and art history graduate..."

Welcome, Doc M! But why don't you tell us what you really think? [:D]
Seriously though, I agree with your assessments, especially about Hicks
and Weir. [:-&] To paraphrase an old Yiddish curse: They should grow
like onions, with their heads in the ground.

I look forward to your future posts.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel

I read recently the theory that Edmund Tudor was in fact the son of Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, who supposedly had an affair with Catherine of Valois before she married up with squire Owen.
It would be interesting one day if we were allowed to dig up what remains of these characters to test their DNA and see who was really related to whom...
Edward IVEdmund TudorEdward Prince of WalesPerkin Warbeck

--- On Fri, 14/5/10, Joan <u2nohoo@...> wrote:

From: Joan <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics
To:
Date: Friday, 14 May, 2010, 21:39
















 









Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote: "... I just wanted to introduce

myself! I'm a 40-something mediæval

> history and art history graduate..."



Welcome, Doc M! But why don't you tell us what you really think? [:D]

Seriously though, I agree with your assessments, especially about Hicks

and Weir. [:-&] To paraphrase an old Yiddish curse: They should grow

like onions, with their heads in the ground.



I look forward to your future posts.



Joan

---

author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century

website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/

blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General

Fiction/Novel

Hello there,

I too am a newbie relatively speaking, having been a Ricardian on and off since about 1973.

Was delighted by the following passage:
I don't have much time for Weir: a BEd is a
> useful qualification, but it's not a full training in historical
> method and research method, and it shows. Her sneers at academic
> history are hardly endearing, either. (My experiences researching and
> writing on 12C history and on later Scottish history make me
> extremely wary of 'popular' history and its purveyors: I've seen far
> too much recycling of now-discredited material in the popular arena
> there seems to be a time-lag of at least 50 years between the
> academic and popular in some areas.

Personally, I cannot stand Alison Weird (oops! my slip). I think it is terrible that she is marketed as a serious historian when she is rehashing outdated legend and gossip. And your quotations from Michael Hicks suggest that he comes from the same intemperate tradition as A L Rowse. I am horrified to learn that he compares Edward V to Anne Frank - that seems imappropriate to me, and quite offensive!

Sorry - rant over...

all best

Jessica Saunders

--- In , "Jessica" <jessica.rydill@...> wrote:
>
> all best
>
> Jessica Saunders



Are you a member of the Scottish Saunders family, allied with the Campbells of Argyle?

Katy

Hello, and welcome!
   Don't mean to be too OT, but are you the same DocM I used to know on the various Tavington websites (mediocre movie, terrific charactor)? I'm mostly a lurker here gleaning knowledge of one of my favorite historical personages (my major is in pre-columbian archeology, with only a minor in British history.). My intro was the most familiar, thru Tey's Daughter Of Time in HS, great lesson in not accepting popular history without throuhly examining. My old handle was the original Isis (My grandmothers name, mine is the diminutive "Isa.) at the old websites. If you want to talk over old times give me an email at isis1052@....
 
Sorry. for disrupting the flow of coversation, Love listening to the discussions.
 
Your American Cousin,
 
Sincerly, Isa (aka "Dangerosa")




From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Subject: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics
To:
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:26 AM


Hi!
I just wanted to introduce myself! I'm a 40-something mediæval 
history and art history graduate, currently in reduced circumstances, 
but keeping bouncy through cultivating my historical interests.

My interest in Richard goes back a long, long way: alarmingly, longer 
than the poor kid's actual lifespan: back to watching 'Second 
Verdict' (1976) on TV when I was nearly 11. In my teens, I read 
nearly everything I could on the subject, and visited Middleham with 
my parents as a treat after my A Levels. (Quite a few of the teachers 
at my high school were R3 Soc members! By their cute piggy badges and 
necklaces did we know them!) I studied Richard's reign as a special 
subject in my second year at university; I also did Honours courses 
on his Scottish contemporaries, which is helpful for context. 
Richard's reputation problem is baffling in comparison with James II, 
whom my tutor  his biographer  described bluntly and, I think, 
accurately as "psychopathic". And having a strong interest in 12C 
history, especially Outremer politics, I'd also feel a damn sight 
safer around Richard III than around Richard I. My interest was 
rekindled later last year with the first news about the new work on 
the Bosworth site, and I caught up with a lot of reading. I love the 
study of portraiture, and was delighted to see the Society of 
Antiquaries' pictures have been cleaned! They now look gorgeous 
(apart from Edward IV, who serves to demonstrate how standards of 
beauty change over time)!

I don't have any particular axe to grind with the characters. If 
anything, Jones's 'Bosworth 1485', which I love, although the 
topographical side of it must now be set aside, made me warm to 
Henry, too. For me, the tragedy of the situation is that two bright, 
capable young men, who shared some interests, should have ended up in 
a situation where one of them must die for the other to flourish. In 
a better time, they might have been friends. They faced some of the 
same personal tragedies, too: both losing an heir (though Henry at 
least had a spare) and wife, before their own untimely deaths. (If 
only Henry had decided to press his stronger claim to France  they 
could have had a kingdom each to play with!)

The Tudor I do despise is Edmund. Jones and Underwood call his 
motives "brutal and exploitative" in ensuring a life-interest in 
Margaret's estates by consummating his marriage without regard for 
her (or the future child's) health and welfare;  the phrase seems to 
sum up the man, too. It makes me boggle at Hicks's bizarre invocation 
of "paedophilia" and "the sex offenders' register" about Richard and 
the entirely-of-age (and widowed!) Anne: if he wants to attack anyone 
for being a child-molester, why doesn't he turn his guns on Edmund?!

Some of Hicks's biographical work I quite like, but he does seem to 
'lose it' on controversial areas: comparing Edward V to Anne Frank, 
or likening him to Arthur of Brittany as a victim of 
"infanticide" (in which case Arthur was a very large, armour-bearing 
'infant'!). I do wonder if Weir's influence as series editor affected 
his Anne Neville book? I don't have much time for Weir: a BEd is a 
useful qualification, but it's not a full training in historical 
method and research method, and it shows. Her sneers at academic 
history are hardly endearing, either. (My experiences researching and 
writing on 12C history and on later Scottish history make me 
extremely wary of 'popular' history and its purveyors: I've seen far 
too much recycling of now-discredited material in the popular arena  
there seems to be a time-lag of at least 50 years between the 
academic and popular in some areas.)

I prefer non-fiction to fiction, but of the novels, my favourite is 
Patrick Carleton's 'Under the Hog', outdated though it is in some 
areas of interpretation. I don't like to see any of the gang ironed 
out into 'romance heroes/heroines', or paired off with Mary-Sues, & 
c. Then there are the novelists who present themselves up as 
'historians' and come to believe things they've made up& (Shivers.)

More to follow!
best wishes,
Doc M




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hello Doc, and welcome from me too. You already have a special place in my
esteem for spelling the word 'mediæval' properly and not being afraid of
diphthongs. If we Brits can manage to write archaeology, paediatrics,
anaesthesia, palaeontology and haemophilia (and even Michael and Raphael),
why on earth is everyone writing 'medieval'? Pet rant!

I fear I cannot warm to Henry Tudor, however, despite the parallels with
Richard III. For my recent book I took some pains to track Henry's methods
in angling for the throne, not to mention his actions immediately upon
gaining it, and found them to be duplicitous and underhand (see particularly
Buck's spirited account of his first Parliament). In his reign he also
proved to be harsh and ..... fill in your own adjectives. I agree Mike Jones
helpfully revealed something of how he was manipulated behind the scenes,
but from 23 August 1485 all credit was down to the man himself.

Otherwise I find myself mostly in agreement with you: I also like
Carleton's 'Under the Hog', and I found the restored portrait of Richard
such a revelation that I insisted on using it for the cover of my book (and
the restored Edward IV inside) (plus, as it happens, Joanna of Portugal as
well as Manuel I), much to the detriment of my bank account! I note that no
other book jacket has used the restored Society of Antiquaries portrait so
far, so maybe the cost was worth it in more ways than one.

I think I have the Barrie Williams articles you refer to, and have also done
some subsequent research which reveals the odd fact that needs to be
corrected: if you'd like to contact me offline at ajcarson@... I
will see what I can do about letting you have scans. I don't know how else
to provide them other than sending photostats in the mail, which is less
convenient for me.

As regards the rumour of Richard wishing to marry Elizabeth of York, my own
feeling is that Richard's council must have been deep in discussion of the
vital problem of the succession as soon as it became clear that Anne wasn't
going to survive. I'm sure the idea of marrying him to his niece was a
serious proposition put forward along with a variety of others - why not? -
it was an obvious option to consider, in view of her potential usefulness to
rivals. Whoever added her name to the list did not, unfortunately, realize
what a hostage to fortune it would prove to be when someone blabbed
(Archbishop Rotherham is my preferred candidate).
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr M M Gilchrist" <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 8:26 PM
Subject: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on
several topics


Hi!
I just wanted to introduce myself! I'm a 40-something mediæval
history and art history graduate, currently in reduced circumstances,
but keeping bouncy through cultivating my historical interests.

My interest in Richard goes back a long, long way: alarmingly, longer
than the poor kid's actual lifespan: back to watching 'Second
Verdict' (1976) on TV when I was nearly 11. In my teens, I read
nearly everything I could on the subject, and visited Middleham with
my parents as a treat after my A Levels. (Quite a few of the teachers
at my high school were R3 Soc members! By their cute piggy badges and
necklaces did we know them!) I studied Richard's reign as a special
subject in my second year at university; I also did Honours courses
on his Scottish contemporaries, which is helpful for context.
Richard's reputation problem is baffling in comparison with James II,
whom my tutor  his biographer  described bluntly and, I think,
accurately as "psychopathic". And having a strong interest in 12C
history, especially Outremer politics, I'd also feel a damn sight
safer around Richard III than around Richard I. My interest was
rekindled later last year with the first news about the new work on
the Bosworth site, and I caught up with a lot of reading. I love the
study of portraiture, and was delighted to see the Society of
Antiquaries' pictures have been cleaned! They now look gorgeous
(apart from Edward IV, who serves to demonstrate how standards of
beauty change over time)!

I don't have any particular axe to grind with the characters. If
anything, Jones's 'Bosworth 1485', which I love, although the
topographical side of it must now be set aside, made me warm to
Henry, too. For me, the tragedy of the situation is that two bright,
capable young men, who shared some interests, should have ended up in
a situation where one of them must die for the other to flourish. In
a better time, they might have been friends. They faced some of the
same personal tragedies, too: both losing an heir (though Henry at
least had a spare) and wife, before their own untimely deaths. (If
only Henry had decided to press his stronger claim to France  they
could have had a kingdom each to play with!)

The Tudor I do despise is Edmund. Jones and Underwood call his
motives "brutal and exploitative" in ensuring a life-interest in
Margaret's estates by consummating his marriage without regard for
her (or the future child's) health and welfare; the phrase seems to
sum up the man, too. It makes me boggle at Hicks's bizarre invocation
of "paedophilia" and "the sex offenders' register" about Richard and
the entirely-of-age (and widowed!) Anne: if he wants to attack anyone
for being a child-molester, why doesn't he turn his guns on Edmund?!

Some of Hicks's biographical work I quite like, but he does seem to
'lose it' on controversial areas: comparing Edward V to Anne Frank,
or likening him to Arthur of Brittany as a victim of
"infanticide" (in which case Arthur was a very large, armour-bearing
'infant'!). I do wonder if Weir's influence as series editor affected
his Anne Neville book? I don't have much time for Weir: a BEd is a
useful qualification, but it's not a full training in historical
method and research method, and it shows. Her sneers at academic
history are hardly endearing, either. (My experiences researching and
writing on 12C history and on later Scottish history make me
extremely wary of 'popular' history and its purveyors: I've seen far
too much recycling of now-discredited material in the popular arena 
there seems to be a time-lag of at least 50 years between the
academic and popular in some areas.)

I prefer non-fiction to fiction, but of the novels, my favourite is
Patrick Carleton's 'Under the Hog', outdated though it is in some
areas of interpretation. I don't like to see any of the gang ironed
out into 'romance heroes/heroines', or paired off with Mary-Sues, &
c. Then there are the novelists who present themselves up as
'historians' and come to believe things they've made up& (Shivers.)

More to follow!
best wishes,
Doc M




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Dear Isa,

>    Don't mean to be too OT, but are you the same DocM I used to know on the various Tavington websites (mediocre movie, terrific charactor)? I'm mostly a lurker here gleaning knowledge of one of my favorite historical personages (my major is in pre-columbian archeology, with only a minor in British history.). My intro was the most familiar, thru Tey's Daughter Of Time in HS, great lesson in not accepting popular history without throuhly examining.

Indeed I am the same.

I read 'The Daughter of Time' as a teenager, but learned almost immediately that it was based on research which was outdated and dodgy even by the time it was published (Markham's late Victorian-Edwardian neo-chivalric romanticism), so found it underwhelming, not to say unconvincing. Not to mention the fact that late 16C copies of copies of copies of paintings are of limited value, even if you believe that you can judge people by appearances.
cheers,
Doc M

Annette Carson wrote:
>
> Hello Doc, and welcome from me too. You already have a special place in my esteem for spelling the word 'mediæval' properly and not being afraid of diphthongs. If we Brits can manage to write archaeology, paediatrics, anaesthesia, palaeontology and haemophilia <snip> why on earth is everyone writing 'medieval'? Pet rant!

Carol responds:

A warm welcome to Doc M from me, too. Regarding "medieval" and the other spellings cited (not counting the two I snipped), some of us are Americans deeply indebted to Noah Webster for his simplified spelling! And tradition, as we all know thanks to Vergil, More, et al. Is not necessarily a good thing. (Which is not to say that we should dispense with it altogether. I much prefer "Merry (or "happy") Christmas" to "Happy holidays!" But I digress.)

Speaking of the U.S. and its real or perceived deficiencies, I can't find a copy of "The Maligned King," which I had vainly hoped to receive for my birthday last month, anywhere in Tucson. It may be in the university library, but I'm not going to pay forty dollars per year for a card that I might not even use since the library is ten miles away. I guess I'll resort to Amazon.com unless anyone has a better suggestion.

Annette:
> I fear I cannot warm to Henry Tudor, however, despite the parallels with Richard III. For my recent book I took some pains to track Henry's methods in angling for the throne, not to mention his actions immediately upon gaining it, and found them to be duplicitous and underhand (see particularly Buck's spirited account of his first Parliament). In his reign he also proved to be harsh and ..... fill in your own adjectives. <snip>

Carol:
Agreed. Anyone who backdates his reign to the day before Bosworth to make men who fought for their anointed king traitors and orders his predecessor's (legitimate) claim to the throne burned unread is a usurper and a tyrant in my (figurative) book, not to mention Morton's Fork and the execution of Yorkist claimants. If only Edmund Tudor had not forced himself on his young wife and had died before the marriage was consummated! If only Margaret had been childless and had not married Thomas Stanley! If only . . . .

Annette:
> As regards the rumour of Richard wishing to marry Elizabeth of York, my own feeling is that Richard's council must have been deep in discussion of the vital problem of the succession as soon as it became clear that Anne wasn't going to survive. I'm sure the idea of marrying him to his niece was a serious proposition put forward along with a variety of others - why not? <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree with the firs sentence of this paragraph, but I can't see anyone proposing Elizabeth as a candidate to marry Richard. She would have to be legitimized, which would also legitimize her brothers, making the older one, living or dead, the rightful heir to the throne and Richard a usurper instead of the rightful king as depicted in the Titulus Regius. Objections such as the fears ostensibly stated by Catesby and Ratcliffe (if I remember correctly) that she would take revenge on them for the deaths of Richard Grey and Anthony Woodville pale in comparison to any resentment she might feel against Richard himself for those same deaths and whatever happened to her brothers. Unless, of course, she was in love with him, as the inscription "Loyaultie Me Lie" in her handwriting in one of her books seems to indicate. But Richard himself would never countenance such a marriage. It would not be in his interests and would make him look like a greedy and incestuous usurper, which is why, IMO, he denied it so vehemently.

Annette:
> it was an obvious option to consider, in view of her potential usefulness to rivals. Whoever added her name to the list did not, unfortunately, realize what a hostage to fortune it would prove to be when someone blabbed (Archbishop Rotherham is my preferred candidate).

Carol responds:
Again, I don't think that a member of the council added her name to the list. I think that it was a rumor, possibly sparked in part by Elizabeth's own behavior. (She also owned a copy of the romance of Tristan that had once been Richard's in which she inscribed the name Elizabeth (nothing about being the King's daughter or wife, so it had to be during Richard's reign) and the French for "Without change," which *could* be code for "I love you always." At any rate, what she may have wanted and what Richard needed and wanted must have been two different things. (Personally, I think he wanted to be left alone to grieve, but, of course, that was impossible.

I think that Joana of Portugal would have been a good choice for him, pious and pliant and his own age. I suppose they would have conversed in Latin or French until she learned English.

Does anyone know who the other candidates might have been? Ferdinand and Isabella's daughters were either babies or not yet born, if I recall correctly. What European princesses or duchesses were available besides Joana? He might have had to resort to a highborn Englishwoman, assuming that any were left after the Woodvilles snapped up all the heiresses.

Carol, wishing she were back in England with access to the British Museum and the Bodleian Library

Hello Katy,

Alas no, my husband is the Saunders and I fear there is no Scottish connection as his father came originally from rural Essex.

My best friend is married to a Campbell (from Canada), but apparently he's the other branch of the Campbells!

all best

Jessica :)

--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

> Are you a member of the Scottish Saunders family, allied with the Campbells of Argyle?
>
> Katy
>

Carol, You can find Richard III: The Maligned King at The Book
Depository here
<http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780752452081/Richard-III> .

***Warning*** I found the font size (6pt for text and smaller for quoted
text) hard on my eyes even with reading glasses, which I do use. I had
to use a magnifier in addition to my glasses. I have the second edition,
but understand History Press (publisher) kept the small fonts for the
third edition. I even complained about the font size in my review (can
read on Amazon.com), but to no avail.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel

Oh, dear, Carol, are you still unable to find "Richard III: The Maligned King"? I wish I had a spare copy to send you. Actually I could lend you one, but I'd need to have it back. I just took a look at the pages of Amazon.com and noted three on offer at between $15 and $16, and five others at between $20 and $30. Unfortunately the publishers seem to think it's a tremendous accolade if they reprint a measly 1,000 copies, and nothing I can say will persuade them to increase the print run of each successive edition. I'm afraid it's a case of snapping up what's available, as they seem to wait ages before considering the next reprint. It's all very frustrating.

At the risk of straying off topic, I think Mr Webster has a lot to answer for, including the introduction of inconsistencies of his own: I guess it's something you notice if you're a wordsmith. But my point was that I was pleased to see a Brit sticking to a British spelling which is at risk of extinction.

As for what Richard's council may have suggested, I think it is very difficult to fathom what was going on in people's minds at the time, especially with the succession being such a huge problem. It would not have been impossible for Elizabeth of York to have been legitimated by Parliament had she been chosen as Richard's bride. David Starkey believes that the act of coronation 'wipes away' illegitimacy anyway, although I wouldn't take Starkey as an authority on anything 15th-century.

It's mysterious, as you say, that the Crowland Chronicler thought Richard's advisers feared Elizabeth might seek reprisals for their part in the deaths of her uncle and half-brother, without a word about the alleged deaths of her brothers of the full blood. Historians like Hicks and Pollard have never picked up on this because it doesn't suit their preconceptions. It seems very obvious to me that if the boys really were dead, there could scarcely have been any mystery at all (or need for mystery) surrounding their fate, whereas if they really had survived, only a very few people would have known and there would have been a very compelling need to preserve the mystery.

I did check the Spanish and Portuguese sources (or, more accurately, I had them checked for me) and it was the case that Richard was in discussion with Spain for the hand of the Infanta Isabella (born 1470) as well as with Portugal for the princess Joanna. Joanna would have scored high marks as the senior female Lancastrian heir, which meant that a marriage with her would have united the remaining *legitimate* heirs of Lancaster and York.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics



Annette Carson wrote:
>
> Hello Doc, and welcome from me too. You already have a special place in my esteem for spelling the word 'mediæval' properly and not being afraid of diphthongs. If we Brits can manage to write archaeology, paediatrics, anaesthesia, palaeontology and haemophilia <snip> why on earth is everyone writing 'medieval'? Pet rant!

Carol responds:

A warm welcome to Doc M from me, too. Regarding "medieval" and the other spellings cited (not counting the two I snipped), some of us are Americans deeply indebted to Noah Webster for his simplified spelling! And tradition, as we all know thanks to Vergil, More, et al. Is not necessarily a good thing. (Which is not to say that we should dispense with it altogether. I much prefer "Merry (or "happy") Christmas" to "Happy holidays!" But I digress.)

Speaking of the U.S. and its real or perceived deficiencies, I can't find a copy of "The Maligned King," which I had vainly hoped to receive for my birthday last month, anywhere in Tucson. It may be in the university library, but I'm not going to pay forty dollars per year for a card that I might not even use since the library is ten miles away. I guess I'll resort to Amazon.com unless anyone has a better suggestion.

Annette:
> I fear I cannot warm to Henry Tudor, however, despite the parallels with Richard III. For my recent book I took some pains to track Henry's methods in angling for the throne, not to mention his actions immediately upon gaining it, and found them to be duplicitous and underhand (see particularly Buck's spirited account of his first Parliament). In his reign he also proved to be harsh and ..... fill in your own adjectives. <snip>

Carol:
Agreed. Anyone who backdates his reign to the day before Bosworth to make men who fought for their anointed king traitors and orders his predecessor's (legitimate) claim to the throne burned unread is a usurper and a tyrant in my (figurative) book, not to mention Morton's Fork and the execution of Yorkist claimants. If only Edmund Tudor had not forced himself on his young wife and had died before the marriage was consummated! If only Margaret had been childless and had not married Thomas Stanley! If only . . . .

Annette:
> As regards the rumour of Richard wishing to marry Elizabeth of York, my own feeling is that Richard's council must have been deep in discussion of the vital problem of the succession as soon as it became clear that Anne wasn't going to survive. I'm sure the idea of marrying him to his niece was a serious proposition put forward along with a variety of others - why not? <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree with the firs sentence of this paragraph, but I can't see anyone proposing Elizabeth as a candidate to marry Richard. She would have to be legitimized, which would also legitimize her brothers, making the older one, living or dead, the rightful heir to the throne and Richard a usurper instead of the rightful king as depicted in the Titulus Regius. Objections such as the fears ostensibly stated by Catesby and Ratcliffe (if I remember correctly) that she would take revenge on them for the deaths of Richard Grey and Anthony Woodville pale in comparison to any resentment she might feel against Richard himself for those same deaths and whatever happened to her brothers. Unless, of course, she was in love with him, as the inscription "Loyaultie Me Lie" in her handwriting in one of her books seems to indicate. But Richard himself would never countenance such a marriage. It would not be in his interests and would make him look like a greedy and incestuous usurper, which is why, IMO, he denied it so vehemently.

Annette:
> it was an obvious option to consider, in view of her potential usefulness to rivals. Whoever added her name to the list did not, unfortunately, realize what a hostage to fortune it would prove to be when someone blabbed (Archbishop Rotherham is my preferred candidate).

Carol responds:
Again, I don't think that a member of the council added her name to the list. I think that it was a rumor, possibly sparked in part by Elizabeth's own behavior. (She also owned a copy of the romance of Tristan that had once been Richard's in which she inscribed the name Elizabeth (nothing about being the King's daughter or wife, so it had to be during Richard's reign) and the French for "Without change," which *could* be code for "I love you always." At any rate, what she may have wanted and what Richard needed and wanted must have been two different things. (Personally, I think he wanted to be left alone to grieve, but, of course, that was impossible.

I think that Joana of Portugal would have been a good choice for him, pious and pliant and his own age. I suppose they would have conversed in Latin or French until she learned English.

Does anyone know who the other candidates might have been? Ferdinand and Isabella's daughters were either babies or not yet born, if I recall correctly. What European princesses or duchesses were available besides Joana? He might have had to resort to a highborn Englishwoman, assuming that any were left after the Woodvilles snapped up all the heiresses.

Carol, wishing she were back in England with access to the British Museum and the Bodleian Library

On 15 May 2010, at 01:08, Jessica wrote:

> Michael Hicks suggest that he comes from the same intemperate
> tradition as A L Rowse. I am horrified to learn that he compares
> Edward V to Anne Frank

I think regarding Hicks I'd react in the same way an audience member
did when a particularly bad actress played Anne Frank on stage in the
US a few years back. So bad was she that when the Germans arrived
someone in the audience shouted out "She's in the attic!" Hicks is
in the 'historians' attic, and should stay there.
Utterly ridiculous comparison as you rightly state. And deeply
offensive to Anne and Ricardians.
Paul



Richard liveth yet

Dear Paul & Jessica,

> > Michael Hicks suggest that he comes from the same intemperate
> > tradition as A L Rowse. I am horrified to learn that he compares
> > Edward V to Anne Frank
>
> I think regarding Hicks I'd react in the same way an audience member
> did when a particularly bad actress played Anne Frank on stage in the
> US a few years back. So bad was she that when the Germans arrived
> someone in the audience shouted out "She's in the attic!" Hicks is
> in the 'historians' attic, and should stay there.
> Utterly ridiculous comparison as you rightly state. And deeply
> offensive to Anne and Ricardians.

It's very, very strange, because he has a lot of good material, and sometimes has interesting things to say – but then he decides to be emotive, and throws out outrageously provocative tabloid-esque remarks, as if for the hell of it. I can see why people do it in lectures occasionally, to wake up their listeners and provoke questions, but in serious biographies?!
best wishes,
Doc M

Dear Jessica,

> Personally, I cannot stand Alison Weird (oops! my slip). I think it is terrible that she is marketed as a serious historian when she is rehashing outdated legend and gossip

I find the gulf between 'popular' and academic history extremely worrying: the 'pops' get all the marketing and publicity thrown at them, but are generally not trained in historical research method. I'm also working a lot on the Third Crusade era at present. I found that most of the 'pops' in the field are English Literature graduates, who tend to use a 1950s secondary source (Runciman) as if he were a primary source. His work has been largely overturned by academic work since then, but I've tracked a small but significant factual error he made being repeated and embellished by popular writers from the 1970s into the 21C, showing clearly that none of them have used the primary sources on this.

What depresses me is that many academic historians don't feel it's worthwhile getting into a scrap about this, as if it's beneath them to devote too much time to demolishing popular myths and misconceptions. As a result, the general readership is still wandering about with misleading notions of the past, based on outdated scholarship and Sirs Walter and Ridley Scott (whom I'm starting to see as twins separated by a couple of centuries!).
best wishes,
Doc M

Totally agree about AW.  I trained as a teacher and History was my main but there is no way I would describe myself as an "historian" even though it's been my passion since I was about 14.  She is very full of herself isn't she?  And I really don't get the thing of writing both fiction and (so-called) non fiction (it's hard to tell the difference.)  What is the the idea of writing both a novel about Eleanor of Aquitaine and a biography?  Most people write one or the other.  There was a woman on my train last week reading one of AW's novels and I was dying to tell her to read some worthwhile fiction - such as Sharon Penman - but I refrained. 

Liz




________________________________
From: Jessica <jessica.rydill@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 May, 2010 1:08:22
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics

 
Hello there,

I too am a newbie relatively speaking, having been a Ricardian on and off since about 1973.

Was delighted by the following passage:
I don't have much time for Weir: a BEd is a
> useful qualification, but it's not a full training in historical
> method and research method, and it shows. Her sneers at academic
> history are hardly endearing, either. (My experiences researching and
> writing on 12C history and on later Scottish history make me
> extremely wary of 'popular' history and its purveyors: I've seen far
> too much recycling of now-discredited material in the popular arena
> there seems to be a time-lag of at least 50 years between the
> academic and popular in some areas.

Personally, I cannot stand Alison Weird (oops! my slip). I think it is terrible that she is marketed as a serious historian when she is rehashing outdated legend and gossip. And your quotations from Michael Hicks suggest that he comes from the same intemperate tradition as A L Rowse. I am horrified to learn that he compares Edward V to Anne Frank - that seems imappropriate to me, and quite offensive!

Sorry - rant over...

all best

Jessica Saunders

Dear Liz,

> Totally agree about AW.  I trained as a teacher and History was my main but there is no way I would describe myself as an "historian" even though it's been my passion since I was about 14.  She is very full of herself isn't she?  And I really don't get the thing of writing both fiction and (so-called) non fiction (it's hard to tell the difference.)  What is the the idea of writing both a novel about Eleanor of Aquitaine and a biography?  Most people write one or the other.  There was a woman on my train last week reading one of AW's novels and I was dying to tell her to read some worthwhile fiction - such as Sharon Penman - but I refrained. 

The other bête noire is P. Gregory: a novelist (again, English Literature degree, on the 18C novel) who presents herself as a historian and even appears as a 'historical expert' on some pop TV programmes. Last year, she was plugging her Woodville novel in the US, and, in an interview I found cited on line, described Bessy as Richard's "lover" as if it were fact!
best wishes,
Doc M

--- In , "reginadespazas" <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Jessica,
>
> > Personally, I cannot stand Alison Weird (oops! my slip). I think it is terrible that she is marketed as a serious historian when she is rehashing outdated legend and gossip (snip)
>
> I find the gulf between 'popular' and academic history extremely worrying: the 'pops' get all the marketing and publicity thrown at them, but are generally not trained in historical research method. (snip)
>
>> best wishes,
> Doc M
>
I very much agree, Doc, especially in relation to Alison Weir.

I belong to a Tudor history forum, where she is particularly popular with a lot of members. Their argument seems to go along the lines of "Oh, well, she makes mistakes, is frequently prejudiced against particular historical personages, but, hey, she does encourage people to be interested in the history....."

I suppose that is true as far as it goes. Unfortunately we seem to have allowed a generation to develop which has lost the ability to think critically about research and theories, but which simply accepts "popular" writing (particularly if it is found on the Internet) as gospel.

If you read the discussion page on Wikipaedia about Anne Boleyn, you will find endless complaints from the historian who "moderates" the page of endless revisions by teenagers who have either seen "The Other Boleyn Girl" and/or "The Tudors" who constantly take out the factual stuff and put in the "drama" stuff.

On 16 May 2010, at 07:57, middleham4home wrote:

> If you read the discussion page on Wikipaedia about Anne Boleyn,
> you will find endless complaints from the historian who "moderates"
> the page of endless revisions by teenagers who have either seen
> "The Other Boleyn Girl" and/or "The Tudors" who constantly take out
> the factual stuff and put in the "drama" stuff.



And of course Richard's reputation is basically down to what a
terrific dramatist Shakespeare was, retelling the Tudor fictions.
Paul





Richard liveth yet

Dear Paul and Pamela,

> > If you read the discussion page on Wikipaedia about Anne Boleyn,
> > you will find endless complaints from the historian who "moderates"
> > the page of endless revisions by teenagers who have either seen
> > "The Other Boleyn Girl" and/or "The Tudors" who constantly take out
> > the factual stuff and put in the "drama" stuff.
>
> And of course Richard's reputation is basically down to what a
> terrific dramatist Shakespeare was, retelling the Tudor fictions.

It's a huge problem in a number of historical areas.
Walter Scott's influence has subliminally and perniciously influenced perceptions of mediæval and Scottish history. Conrad of Montferrat has had a particularly bad time of it, thanks to him. I corresponded briefly with a historical novelist who had thought it acceptable to turn him into a sadistic rapist on no evidence whatsoever, I think purely to 'spice up' a novel 40 years ago. The justification – that different artists will always have different takes on the same subject – struck me as poor, given that we're talking about inventing major accusations against real people!

Some people believe all sorts of nonsense that appears in historical fiction and film, because they assume the writers have done the research. They see historical consultants' names on film credits, and don't realise that, often as not, they've been ignored or overruled!
best wishes,
Doc M

I am one of those people who hated history until much later in life. I
have to blame the way history was taught in the schools that I attended.
To be blunt, it was boooring and it didn't connect to me.

It took The Sunne in Splendour and my retiring from my day job (in
computer science) for me to want to dig deeper and learn more about
Richard III. Aside from Penman bringing Richard to life for me, I don't
think I would have then done any research if I had not first had the
Shakespearean image firmly implanted.

I am convinced that Richard would have been an obscure historical
footnote if it hadn't been for Shakespeare's excellent drama.

I know a lot of people like Gregory's books, but I couldn't get through
the one novel I tried. I thought her characters were thin and whiny.
*shrugs*

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel

Dear Joan,

> I am one of those people who hated history until much later in life. I
> have to blame the way history was taught in the schools that I attended.
> To be blunt, it was boooring and it didn't connect to me.

I've never been able to understand that, although I knew people at school and university who thought that way. The history we did at school didn't really kindle my imagination, but even before I started primary school, my Dad took me to the local art gallery and museums and historic buildings (we lived in Hull then, so there were de la Pole tombs in the main church, & c). To me, history is as much a part of life as breathing.
best wishes,
Doc M

Dear Joan, Doc M and everyone else,

I think if you grow up in Europe, where history is all around, it is much easier to become interested. You had the de la Pole tombs in Hull. With me, growing up near Bonn and Cologne, the Romans featured very strongly as well as medieval castles along the Rhine. And we were both lucky enough to have had parents with an interest. But I see it with my daughter, she has been taken to any worthwhile museum and exhibition that came our way here in Australia. And though she is interested in history (she is actually doing her History Extension project for her HSC on Richard III), I don't think it's as real for her as it was for me. There is a difference whether you can walk among the historic sites or whether you just see them on a computer or TV screen.

Though we can try to make it more alive for people, because it is alive for us. One member of our branch was invited to a school near where she lives to give a talk on the real Richard, as they are doing Shakespeare's fiction in class. She told us that the students were fascinated that here is this woman for whom Richard seems to be like a close friend and to whom he and his period were real.

Best regards, Dorothea




________________________________
From: reginadespazas <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Mon, 17 May, 2010 7:54:32 AM
Subject: Re: Weir & the 'pops'


Dear Joan,

> I am one of those people who hated history until much later in life. I
> have to blame the way history was taught in the schools that I attended.
> To be blunt, it was boooring and it didn't connect to me.

I've never been able to understand that, although I knew people at school and university who thought that way. The history we did at school didn't really kindle my imagination, but even before I started primary school, my Dad took me to the local art gallery and museums and historic buildings (we lived in Hull then, so there were de la Pole tombs in the main church, & c). To me, history is as much a part of life as breathing.
best wishes,
Doc M

Excellent point, Dorothea. Certainly, growing up in the US, first in
Brooklyn, NY and then in Bridgeport, CT there were historical points of
interest near at hand. However, my parents weren't particularly
interested in history and it wasn't taught in an interesting way. I had
to memorize names and dates and there was pretty much no context, IMO.
The people were dead and so was the history. Funnily, I had a pretty
good memory, and the kids would cheat off me during tests--I was unaware
of this. I couldn't wait to leave all historical studies behind me and
concentrate on math, and science. I could make that come alive through
experiments, proofs, and projects.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel

Ah, the original de la Poles in Hull. I am quite near Wingfield where there are some later ones - and also researching a putative line in France/ Switzerland and now London, with some interesting members.

--- In , "reginadespazas" <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Joan,
>
> > I am one of those people who hated history until much later in life. I
> > have to blame the way history was taught in the schools that I attended.
> > To be blunt, it was boooring and it didn't connect to me.
>
> I've never been able to understand that, although I knew people at school and university who thought that way. The history we did at school didn't really kindle my imagination, but even before I started primary school, my Dad took me to the local art gallery and museums and historic buildings (we lived in Hull then, so there were de la Pole tombs in the main church, & c). To me, history is as much a part of life as breathing.
> best wishes,
> Doc M
>

Dear Stephen,

> Ah, the original de la Poles in Hull.

Yes. Hull's psychiatric hospital is named after them, for some reason! (Not sure if it might be on the site of a piece of their property.)

>I am quite near Wingfield where there are some later ones - and also researching a putative line in France/ Switzerland and now London, with some interesting members.

Interesting!

I have photos of the tombs in Holy Trinity, which I'll post: fine alabasters, late 14C.

The site of the Suffolk Palace is under the former GPO (now flats, and 'Three John Scotts' pub). There's a fragment of the panelling in St Mary Lowgate.

The family name was originally "atte Poole" – at the pool, or harbour, of Hull, which in those days was on the River Hull, at the back of the High Street.
cheers,
Doc M

Their leading putative descendant lives about two miles from Tower Hill, with which his multiple-great-uncle was terminally acquainted 497 years ago. Others include an Admiral, a philosopher, a Governor of Canada, a Swiss man shot in 1793/4 - all apparently descended from Lord Richard (k.1525).

--- In , "reginadespazas" <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> > Ah, the original de la Poles in Hull.
>
> Yes. Hull's psychiatric hospital is named after them, for some reason! (Not sure if it might be on the site of a piece of their property.)
>
> >I am quite near Wingfield where there are some later ones - and also researching a putative line in France/ Switzerland and now London, with some interesting members.
>
> Interesting!
>
> I have photos of the tombs in Holy Trinity, which I'll post: fine alabasters, late 14C.
>
> The site of the Suffolk Palace is under the former GPO (now flats, and 'Three John Scotts' pub). There's a fragment of the panelling in St Mary Lowgate.
>
> The family name was originally "atte Poole" – at the pool, or harbour, of Hull, which in those days was on the River Hull, at the back of the High Street.
> cheers,
> Doc M
>

Rather belatedly, Paul - I love that story about the Anne Frank play and the bad acting! But it does sound as if M. Hicks had a lapse of taste there. Not to mention sense of proportion!

Jessica

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> I think regarding Hicks I'd react in the same way an audience member
> did when a particularly bad actress played Anne Frank on stage in the
> US a few years back. So bad was she that when the Germans arrived
> someone in the audience shouted out "She's in the attic!" Hicks is
> in the 'historians' attic, and should stay there.
> Utterly ridiculous comparison as you rightly state. And deeply
> offensive to Anne and Ricardians.
> Paul
>
>
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

Hi Liz,

(rather behind here). It does seem extraordinary that someone should write historical fiction and so-called works of serious history. Not impossible, because many writers of fiction can be interested enough in their subject to produce a non-fiction book. But it seems as if Alison Weir approaches it from the opposite direction.

One suspects that the projects of a fiction writer such as Hilary Mantel have more interesting things to say about Thomas Cromwell than Weir's purported factual writings. It also irritates me that Paul Murray Kendall was criticised for dramatising events when he wrote in 1954, whereas Weir seems to get away with all sorts of artistic license.

Jessica

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
  And I really don't get the thing of writing both fiction and (so-called) non fiction (it's hard to tell the difference.)  What is the the idea of writing both a novel about Eleanor of Aquitaine and a biography? 

Hi Doc M,
Well, speaking as an English Literature graduate (of some vintage), I quite agree - those are such different disciplines! I'm fascinated to read what you say about Runciman/the Third Crusade. I did do an evening class on the Crusades some years ago, and we were directed back to original sources and an historian called Jonathan Riley Smith. Unfortunately, I always seem to get stuck on the First Crusade, possibly because to me it is the most interesting!

But there are some historians who are out-dated and yet whose works still seem to be in circulation. I think academic historians should cross swords with popular misconceptions. Journalists (in this country) in particular are fond of rehashing tired old legends (and outright fiction).

A couple of years ago, the TV presenter Tony Robinson did an excellent critique of the myths behind the Da Vinci Code, resorting to a number of genuine experts in the process (such as Elaine Pagels in respect of the Gnostic Gospels). It was a great pleasure to see a programme bringing out some serious research.

Jessica

--- In , "reginadespazas" <docm@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Jessica,

> I find the gulf between 'popular' and academic history extremely worrying: the 'pops' get all the marketing and publicity thrown at them, but are generally not trained in historical research method. I'm also working a lot on the Third Crusade era at present. I found that most of the 'pops' in the field are English Literature graduates, who tend to use a 1950s secondary source (Runciman) as if he were a primary source. His work has been largely overturned by academic work since then, but I've tracked a small but significant factual error he made being repeated and embellished by popular writers from the 1970s into the 21C, showing clearly that none of them have used the primary sources on this.
>
> What depresses me is that many academic historians don't feel it's worthwhile getting into a scrap about this, as if it's beneath them to devote too much time to demolishing popular myths and misconceptions. As a result, the general readership is still wandering about with misleading notions of the past, based on outdated scholarship and Sirs Walter and Ridley Scott (whom I'm starting to see as twins separated by a couple of centuries!).
> best wishes,
> Doc M
>

Dear Jessica,

> Well, speaking as an English Literature graduate (of some vintage), I quite agree - those are such different disciplines!

I think it comes out very much in attitude towards sources. Some of the lit-background writers prefer to use whatever tells the more entertaining story, or is written in a more literary style, rather than what is more accurate. They also don't have the general background knowledge to assess what lies behind some texts in terms of authorship, provenance, and what mediæval people aimed at in writing history.

There's also 'cross-infection' from historical fiction. I suspect that sometimes the writers aren't even conscious of it, but they seem to have preconceptions about particular characters that owe more to their fictional images than to non-fictional sources, and these inform the way they treat them. (Obviously, with Richard, Shakespeare's character is the looming fictional presence.)

Another concern I have is with the writers who use history as a proxy for contemporary affairs, and simply do not grasp that it's a *different world*.

>I'm fascinated to read what you say about Runciman/the Third Crusade.

Yes. He was a lovely old gentleman: I was lucky enough to meet him when he gave a talk for the Scottish-Hellenic Society in St Andrews. He was in his 80s, but still sharp as a pin! However, he was a self-confessed romantic, and took some of his sources at face-value. Now, some of that was fair enough at the time he was writing (1950-54), but there was a lot more work done on them by later scholars, from the '60s onward. He kept his reading up to date (St As inherited his library just a few years ago, and I've used some of his books myself!), but he *never* revised his own work in the light of this. There was never an 'updated edition'. But because his work is written in an accessible style, it's still in print and one of the first things to which general readers turn, even though it's now been shown to be plain wrong in many areas.

>I did do an evening class on the Crusades some years ago, and we were directed back to original sources and an historian called Jonathan Riley Smith.

Yes: he's very good. I also like Christopher Tyerman and Helen Nicholson's work a great deal: Helen is superb on the military orders. Bernard Hamilton and Benjamin Kedar are excellent.

> But there are some historians who are out-dated and yet whose works still seem to be in circulation. I think academic historians should cross swords with popular misconceptions. Journalists (in this country) in particular are fond of rehashing tired old legends (and outright fiction).

Indeed. I recently had an article turned down by a journal because "the treatment of popular history was too lengthy and not quite appropriate for an academic journal". But I think we *need* to dissect what is being peddled by the popular market and challenge them. I've sent it off to another journal.

> A couple of years ago, the TV presenter Tony Robinson did an excellent critique of the myths behind the Da Vinci Code, resorting to a number of genuine experts in the process (such as Elaine Pagels in respect of the Gnostic Gospels). It was a great pleasure to see a programme bringing out some serious research.

Yes, that was fun.
best wishes,
Doc M

Dear Jessica,

> (rather behind here). It does seem extraordinary that someone should write historical fiction and so-called works of serious history. Not impossible, because many writers of fiction can be interested enough in their subject to produce a non-fiction book. But it seems as if Alison Weir approaches it from the opposite direction.

I thought she'd just got more honest about labelling her work... ;-D

I think the major risk is of bleed-through: writers like this often lose track of what they've made up.

> It also irritates me that Paul Murray Kendall was criticised for dramatising events when he wrote in 1954, whereas Weir seems to get away with all sorts of artistic license.

I don't know about that. Weir does get pilloried by serious historians. The problem is the marketing machine, and a dumbed-down culture that cries "elitism" if you complain about badly researched dross flooding the market.

If anything, it was far easier for Kendall to get away with his romantic dramatisations in the 1950s: it was in vogue at the time. Runciman was writing in similar, though less detailed, vein in his 'History of the Crusades'. I think Kendall gets more flak *now* because (rightly) academic writing is more wary of blurring the lines of fact and fiction. The likes of Weir and Reston aren't taken seriously for the same reason.
best wishes,
Doc M

On 19 May 2010, at 12:12, reginadespazas wrote:

> Kendall to get away with his romantic dramatisations

Huge difference between romantic dramatisations, and the fictions of
Weir though.
Paul


Richard liveth yet

Dear Paul,

> > Kendall to get away with his romantic dramatisations
>
> Huge difference between romantic dramatisations, and the fictions of
> Weir though.

But both are obstacles: the writer interposes him/herself intrusively between the reader and the evidence.
Richard's case is not unique. In 12C crusading history, it's the same with Runciman (1950s romantic dramatisation, based on now-outdated interpretations) and the likes of Reston and Armstrong (fictionalisation and factual inaccuracy, combined with manipulation of history for contemporary political agenda/personal psychological needs).
I've also encountered similar things in my work on 18C military history.
best wishes,
Doc M

Joan wrote:
>
> Carol, You can find Richard III: The Maligned King at The Book
> Depository here
> <http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780752452081/Richard-III> .
>
> ***Warning*** I found the font size (6pt for text and smaller for quoted text) hard on my eyes even with reading glasses, which I do use. I had to use a magnifier in addition to my glasses. I have the second edition,but understand History Press (publisher) kept the small fonts for the third edition. I even complained about the font size in my review (can read on Amazon.com), but to no avail.

Carol responds:
Thanks very much, but there's no way in this universe that I can read six-point type with smaller quotes. I'd hate to think what size the notes are! I can't use reading glasses for anything except driving since I'm far-sighted. I suppose I'll have to wait for a large print edition (or till I win the lottery and can buy a Kindle). I can't imagine a book in six-point type. Isn't that what pharmacists use on medicine bottles? Even ten-point is too small to read easily.

Carol, whose Word program only goes down to eight points

Annette Carson wrote:
>
> Oh, dear, Carol, are you still unable to find "Richard III: The Maligned King"? I wish I had a spare copy to send you. Actually I could lend you one, but I'd need to have it back. I just took a look at the pages of Amazon.com and noted three on offer at between $15 and $16, and five others at between $20 and $30. Unfortunately the publishers seem to think it's a tremendous accolade if they reprint a measly 1,000 copies, and nothing I can say will persuade them to increase the print run of each successive edition. I'm afraid it's a case of snapping up what's available, as they seem to wait ages before considering the next reprint. It's all very frustrating.

Carol responds:
I found it for $15.33 (plus $3.99 shipping) on Amazon New and Used from a U.S. seller (but if the font is really six point I won't be able to read it!) You'll be amused to discover that one seller is charging $1,717.85 (unless that's an error)! Oddly, the used copies are more expensive (around $57.00) than many of the new ones.

At the moment, though, I'm just recovering from a computer crash, so I'll need to wait a while before I can buy books.

Annette:
> At the risk of straying off topic, I think Mr Webster has a lot to answer for, including the introduction of inconsistencies of his own: I guess it's something you notice if you're a wordsmith. But my point was that I was pleased to see a Brit sticking to a British spelling which is at risk of extinction.

Carol:
If it's any comfort, I'm a copyeditor, and when I get a manuscript from a British author, I'm careful to preserve British spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Your "inverted commas" may be on the verge of extinction, but I wasn't aware that British spelling was in any danger (on your side of the Atlantic or even in Canada).

Annette:
> As for what Richard's council may have suggested, I think it is very difficult to fathom what was going on in people's minds at the time, especially with the succession being such a huge problem. It would not have been impossible for Elizabeth of York to have been legitimated by Parliament had she been chosen as Richard's bride. David Starkey believes that the act of coronation 'wipes away' illegitimacy anyway, although I wouldn't take Starkey as an authority on anything 15th-century.

Carol:
But the problem, for Richard, would be that legitimizing Elizabeth would legitimize her brothers or at least call their bastardization into question (whether they were alive or not at the time). I still can't see anyone other than Elizabeth herself and possibly her mother even contemplating it. But, as you say, it's impossible to fathom what was going on in the council's minds, especially since all of them had their own interests as well as Richard's to consider. I'm afraid that I don't know who David Starkey is. I'm rather out of touch with recent sources.

Annette:
> It's mysterious, as you say, that the Crowland Chronicler thought Richard's advisers feared Elizabeth might seek reprisals for their part in the deaths of her uncle and half-brother, without a word about the alleged deaths of her brothers of the full blood. Historians like Hicks and Pollard have never picked up on this because it doesn't suit their preconceptions. It seems very obvious to me that if the boys really were dead, there could scarcely have been any mystery at all (or need for mystery) surrounding their fate, whereas if they really had survived, only a very few people would have known and there would have been a very compelling need to preserve the mystery.

Carol:
Exactly. And there's always the old argument that if they were dead and if it were in his interest for them to be so, he would have shown the bodies (as Edward did for Henry VI), along with some official story comparable to the "pure displeasure and melancholy" version of Henry's death. Of course, the official cause of death would have to be plague or sweating sickness. But since there was no such announcement (and no display of children's bodies), there's no reason except deliberately spread rumors and "Some Bones" that could be Roman girls for all we know to believe otherwise.

Annette:
> I did check the Spanish and Portuguese sources (or, more accurately, I had them checked for me) and it was the case that Richard was in discussion with Spain for the hand of the Infanta Isabella (born 1470) as well as with Portugal for the princess Joanna. Joanna would have scored high marks as the senior female Lancastrian heir, which meant that a marriage with her would have united the remaining *legitimate* heirs of Lancaster and York.

Carol:
Thanks. So, politically, she would have been an excellent choice--all the ostensible advantages of marrying Elizabeth of York with none of the (in my view) obvious disadvantages. But I doubt that she spoke English, and unless she spoke French (or they attempted to converse in Latin like Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon at a later date--though there would have been no Prince Arthur if Richard had won Boswrth). She was close to Richard's age, an advantage for compatibility, and not to old to have children, but if she was a pious and nunlike as her reputation suggests, it probably wouldn't have been a happy marriage, just an affair of state for the official purpose of begetting an heir.

But I was wondering whether any other princesses or duchesses were (theoretically) available for marriage at that time. (Henry Tudor was going to resort to Anne Herbert if he couldn't marry Elizabeth--but then, he wasn't a king at the time.) The oldest Spanish princess, Isabella, was born in 1470 and he probably would consider her too young, and France was busy spreading poisonous rumors at his expense. Does anyone know who was available, just for the sake of might have beens?

Carol, finally getting back to normal after a computer crash a few weeks ago

I hate to argue with anyone when it comes to their opinion of any of my books, but when it comes to a question of fact rather than opinion, as in the font size, I feel I must respond.

I am the first to admit that the font size in the paperback editions of "The Maligned King" is very small, and I tried to get the publishers to change it. They refused, saying that they hadn't received any complaints from their customers (i.e. bookshops) and that it's a standard size they use in paperbacks.

Nevertheless, it is awfully misleading to stipulate that it is a particular font size - in this case Joan says it's 6-pt - without identifying what font you mean (i.e. type-face or style). Anyone who has experimented with different fonts, even if only for emails, will know that 12-pt in one type-face will be a completely different size in another type-face.

I don't know what font Joan is using for comparison, but the one used by The History Press is Bembo. I don't have Bembo on my laptop, but since everyone is familiar with Times New Roman, I used this for comparison. I can confirm that the body text is about 9-pt Times, and the quotes and endnotes are about 8-pt. The hardback first edition used a font size equivalent to about 10-pt Times, with quotes/endnotes approximately 9-pt.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics



Joan wrote:
>
> Carol, You can find Richard III: The Maligned King at The Book
> Depository here
> <http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780752452081/Richard-III> .
>
> ***Warning*** I found the font size (6pt for text and smaller for quoted text) hard on my eyes even with reading glasses, which I do use. I had to use a magnifier in addition to my glasses. I have the second edition,but understand History Press (publisher) kept the small fonts for the third edition. I even complained about the font size in my review (can read on Amazon.com), but to no avail.

Carol responds:
Thanks very much, but there's no way in this universe that I can read six-point type with smaller quotes. I'd hate to think what size the notes are! I can't use reading glasses for anything except driving since I'm far-sighted. I suppose I'll have to wait for a large print edition (or till I win the lottery and can buy a Kindle). I can't imagine a book in six-point type. Isn't that what pharmacists use on medicine bottles? Even ten-point is too small to read easily.

Carol, whose Word program only goes down to eight points

Hi Carole - Sorry about your computer crash. Regarding book prices on Amazon and the like, these prices of $50 or more, for a book that's in print at a quarter of the price, are entirely fictitious. The seller doesn't have any copies of the book but expects to obtain supplies, so if any buyer is so keen as to order at such a ridiculous price, they will simply be told that stocks will 'soon be available'.

Regarding Webster's spelling revisions, I am sorry to say that they are permeating British and South African writing. I don't come across many books printed in Canada, but my Canadian email correspondents primarily use US spelling conventions. I defy anyone to say that it *simplifies* spelling to introduce e.g. the convention of -er for -re (as in 'center/theater' for British 'centre/theatre') and then leave 'massacre' unchanged. To my mind all Webster did was introduce a new rule with exceptions! And what was he doing reversing the endings of selected pairs of words like British 'practice' (noun) and 'practise' (verb), without changing ALL of them? If it's to be American usage to write 'practise' (noun) and 'practice' (verb), then why didn't he change 'advice' (noun) and 'advise' (verb)? Again, all that happened was that you had to learn a new rule with exceptions. If I'd been doing the revising I would have said just write 'ise' for everything, including -ize, and have done with it.

What I most regret is the loss of diphthongs, or I should say 'selected diphthongs', since they are retained in proper names like Michael, Raphael, etc. Do Americans write Daedalus or Dedalus? 'Oedipus Rex' or 'Edipus Rex'? I don't think I ever heard of an 'edipus complex'! Again, it's a pseudo-simplification that merely introduces new rules with exceptions you have to learn. Apparently you guys are not considered too orthographically-challenged (;-) to be able to cope with 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' (the brand name), but when you look inside, you get 'encyclopedia'. It's even more confusing when we Brits look under 'A' in the dictionary for 'aesthetic', while you look under 'E' for 'esthetic'. I could go on, but I'm sure anyone still reading this must be glassy-eyed by now!

Re legitimizing (or legitimising!), this was not such a big deal in mediaeval times, and could be done, especially if you had the right connections, to ensure inheritance, etc. Obviously everyone in 1485 knew that all of Edward IV's offspring had been rendered illegitimate by his bigamy, so it was not a brilliant idea for the king to marry one of them, especially if she was his niece. However, it *could* be done (uncle/niece was not expressly forbidden in Leviticus, unlike aunt/nephew), and she *could* have been singled out for legitimation as the king's bride - not because she wasn't a bastard after all, but by special magnanimity of the king and the Church. In today's jargon this would have been blue-sky thinking, but I believe the council would have considered it remiss not to put all possible names on the list of candidates, including the unlikely ones.

David Starkey? Starkey is a self-important Tudor specialist much beloved of the History Channel, very mannered and waspish, who loves to badmouth Richard III even though it's not his period. He can be seen in the UK television "Trial of Richard III" trying a bit too hard to be clever and suffering a neat put-down by the counsel for the defence (aka 'Mr Dillon'). In his evidence at the "Trial", Starkey tried to claim that the fact of Edward V's succession (sorry, I think I said coronation previously) 'wipes out all illegitimacy, as every other obstacle to the throne'. His authority was the mid sixteenth-century lawyer Sergeant Plowden, and his precedent was the accession of Elizabeth I who succeeded even though she had been bastardized in 1536. A bit much, I think, to reverse-engineer this (as Joan would say) back to 1483!
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics



Annette Carson wrote:
>
> Oh, dear, Carol, are you still unable to find "Richard III: The Maligned King"? I wish I had a spare copy to send you. Actually I could lend you one, but I'd need to have it back. I just took a look at the pages of Amazon.com and noted three on offer at between $15 and $16, and five others at between $20 and $30. Unfortunately the publishers seem to think it's a tremendous accolade if they reprint a measly 1,000 copies, and nothing I can say will persuade them to increase the print run of each successive edition. I'm afraid it's a case of snapping up what's available, as they seem to wait ages before considering the next reprint. It's all very frustrating.

Carol responds:
I found it for $15.33 (plus $3.99 shipping) on Amazon New and Used from a U.S. seller (but if the font is really six point I won't be able to read it!) You'll be amused to discover that one seller is charging $1,717.85 (unless that's an error)! Oddly, the used copies are more expensive (around $57.00) than many of the new ones.

At the moment, though, I'm just recovering from a computer crash, so I'll need to wait a while before I can buy books.

Annette:
> At the risk of straying off topic, I think Mr Webster has a lot to answer for, including the introduction of inconsistencies of his own: I guess it's something you notice if you're a wordsmith. But my point was that I was pleased to see a Brit sticking to a British spelling which is at risk of extinction.

Carol:
If it's any comfort, I'm a copyeditor, and when I get a manuscript from a British author, I'm careful to preserve British spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Your "inverted commas" may be on the verge of extinction, but I wasn't aware that British spelling was in any danger (on your side of the Atlantic or even in Canada).

Annette:
> As for what Richard's council may have suggested, I think it is very difficult to fathom what was going on in people's minds at the time, especially with the succession being such a huge problem. It would not have been impossible for Elizabeth of York to have been legitimated by Parliament had she been chosen as Richard's bride. David Starkey believes that the act of coronation 'wipes away' illegitimacy anyway, although I wouldn't take Starkey as an authority on anything 15th-century.

Carol:
But the problem, for Richard, would be that legitimizing Elizabeth would legitimize her brothers or at least call their bastardization into question (whether they were alive or not at the time). I still can't see anyone other than Elizabeth herself and possibly her mother even contemplating it. But, as you say, it's impossible to fathom what was going on in the council's minds, especially since all of them had their own interests as well as Richard's to consider. I'm afraid that I don't know who David Starkey is. I'm rather out of touch with recent sources.

Annette:
> It's mysterious, as you say, that the Crowland Chronicler thought Richard's advisers feared Elizabeth might seek reprisals for their part in the deaths of her uncle and half-brother, without a word about the alleged deaths of her brothers of the full blood. Historians like Hicks and Pollard have never picked up on this because it doesn't suit their preconceptions. It seems very obvious to me that if the boys really were dead, there could scarcely have been any mystery at all (or need for mystery) surrounding their fate, whereas if they really had survived, only a very few people would have known and there would have been a very compelling need to preserve the mystery.

Carol:
Exactly. And there's always the old argument that if they were dead and if it were in his interest for them to be so, he would have shown the bodies (as Edward did for Henry VI), along with some official story comparable to the "pure displeasure and melancholy" version of Henry's death. Of course, the official cause of death would have to be plague or sweating sickness. But since there was no such announcement (and no display of children's bodies), there's no reason except deliberately spread rumors and "Some Bones" that could be Roman girls for all we know to believe otherwise.

Annette:
> I did check the Spanish and Portuguese sources (or, more accurately, I had them checked for me) and it was the case that Richard was in discussion with Spain for the hand of the Infanta Isabella (born 1470) as well as with Portugal for the princess Joanna. Joanna would have scored high marks as the senior female Lancastrian heir, which meant that a marriage with her would have united the remaining *legitimate* heirs of Lancaster and York.

Carol:
Thanks. So, politically, she would have been an excellent choice--all the ostensible advantages of marrying Elizabeth of York with none of the (in my view) obvious disadvantages. But I doubt that she spoke English, and unless she spoke French (or they attempted to converse in Latin like Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon at a later date--though there would have been no Prince Arthur if Richard had won Boswrth). She was close to Richard's age, an advantage for compatibility, and not to old to have children, but if she was a pious and nunlike as her reputation suggests, it probably wouldn't have been a happy marriage, just an affair of state for the official purpose of begetting an heir.

But I was wondering whether any other princesses or duchesses were (theoretically) available for marriage at that time. (Henry Tudor was going to resort to Anne Herbert if he couldn't marry Elizabeth--but then, he wasn't a king at the time.) The oldest Spanish princess, Isabella, was born in 1470 and he probably would consider her too young, and France was busy spreading poisonous rumors at his expense. Does anyone know who was available, just for the sake of might have beens?

Carol, finally getting back to normal after a computer crash a few weeks ago

My appologies, Annette for not stating how I measured the font size. I
used a commercial ruler that has specific font measuring marks between 6
and 14 point. Now I know why I hate the Times New Roman font. It hurts
my eyes!

It's too bad The History Press chose mass market paperback instead of
trade paperback format. I know how hard you tried to get them to use a
larger size, how I wish they had listened to you.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel

--- In , "Annette Carson"
<ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> I hate to argue with anyone when it comes to their opinion of any of
my books, but when it comes to a question of fact rather than opinion,
as in the font size, I feel I must respond.
>
> I am the first to admit that the font size in the paperback editions
of "The Maligned King" is very small, and I tried to get the publishers
to change it. They refused, saying that they hadn't received any
complaints from their customers (i.e. bookshops) and that it's a
standard size they use in paperbacks.
>
> Nevertheless, it is awfully misleading to stipulate that it is a
particular font size - in this case Joan says it's 6-pt - without
identifying what font you mean (i.e. type-face or style). Anyone who has
experimented with different fonts, even if only for emails, will know
that 12-pt in one type-face will be a completely different size in
another type-face.
>
> I don't know what font Joan is using for comparison, but the one used
by The History Press is Bembo. I don't have Bembo on my laptop, but
since everyone is familiar with Times New Roman, I used this for
comparison. I can confirm that the body text is about 9-pt Times, and
the quotes and endnotes are about 8-pt. The hardback first edition used
a font size equivalent to about 10-pt Times, with quotes/endnotes
approximately 9-pt.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous
ramblings on several topics
>
>
>
> Joan wrote:
> >
> > Carol, You can find Richard III: The Maligned King at The Book
> > Depository here
> > <http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780752452081/Richard-III> .
> >
> > ***Warning*** I found the font size (6pt for text and smaller for
quoted text) hard on my eyes even with reading glasses, which I do use.
I had to use a magnifier in addition to my glasses. I have the second
edition,but understand History Press (publisher) kept the small fonts
for the third edition. I even complained about the font size in my
review (can read on Amazon.com), but to no avail.
>
> Carol responds:
> Thanks very much, but there's no way in this universe that I can
read six-point type with smaller quotes. I'd hate to think what size the
notes are! I can't use reading glasses for anything except driving since
I'm far-sighted. I suppose I'll have to wait for a large print edition
(or till I win the lottery and can buy a Kindle). I can't imagine a book
in six-point type. Isn't that what pharmacists use on medicine bottles?
Even ten-point is too small to read easily.
>
> Carol, whose Word program only goes down to eight points
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well I thought the print was a bit small - and certainly smaller than in any of my other paperbacks, fiction or non fiction -  but it certainly isn't unreadable in my copy.   

Liz

 



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <ajcarson@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 May, 2010 14:11:34
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics

 
I hate to argue with anyone when it comes to their opinion of any of my books, but when it comes to a question of fact rather than opinion, as in the font size, I feel I must respond.

I am the first to admit that the font size in the paperback editions of "The Maligned King" is very small, and I tried to get the publishers to change it. They refused, saying that they hadn't received any complaints from their customers (i.e. bookshops) and that it's a standard size they use in paperbacks.

Nevertheless, it is awfully misleading to stipulate that it is a particular font size - in this case Joan says it's 6-pt - without identifying what font you mean (i.e. type-face or style). Anyone who has experimented with different fonts, even if only for emails, will know that 12-pt in one type-face will be a completely different size in another type-face.

I don't know what font Joan is using for comparison, but the one used by The History Press is Bembo. I don't have Bembo on my laptop, but since everyone is familiar with Times New Roman, I used this for comparison. I can confirm that the body text is about 9-pt Times, and the quotes and endnotes are about 8-pt. The hardback first edition used a font size equivalent to about 10-pt Times, with quotes/endnotes approximately 9-pt.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics

Joan wrote:
>
> Carol, You can find Richard III: The Maligned King at The Book
> Depository here
> <http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9780752452081/Richard-III> .
>
> ***Warning*** I found the font size (6pt for text and smaller for quoted text) hard on my eyes even with reading glasses, which I do use. I had to use a magnifier in addition to my glasses. I have the second edition,but understand History Press (publisher) kept the small fonts for the third edition. I even complained about the font size in my review (can read on Amazon.com), but to no avail.

Carol responds:
Thanks very much, but there's no way in this universe that I can read six-point type with smaller quotes. I'd hate to think what size the notes are! I can't use reading glasses for anything except driving since I'm far-sighted. I suppose I'll have to wait for a large print edition (or till I win the lottery and can buy a Kindle). I can't imagine a book in six-point type. Isn't that what pharmacists use on medicine bottles? Even ten-point is too small to read easily.

Carol, whose Word program only goes down to eight points

Liz, It's probably because I'm of an age where I must use reading
glasses to read normal print, but I found that after reading that small
type for about a half hour, I had to get a magnifying glass in order to
continue reading. I made the effort because the book was so interesting
and valuable to me.

liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote: "Well I thought the print
was a bit small - and certainly smaller than in any of my other
paperbacks, fiction or non fiction - Â but it certainly isn't
unreadable in my copy."

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel

Joan, I'm 54 so I am there with you.  i have varifocals which are supposed to negate the need for reading glasses but I still take them off and hold the book right up to my nose!

(Maybe that's the answer?)




________________________________
From: Joan <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 May, 2010 17:27:16
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings on several topics

 
Liz, It's probably because I'm of an age where I must use reading
glasses to read normal print, but I found that after reading that small
type for about a half hour, I had to get a magnifying glass in order to
continue reading. I made the effort because the book was so interesting
and valuable to me.

liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote: "Well I thought the print
was a bit small - and certainly smaller than in any of my other
paperbacks, fiction or non fiction - Â but it certainly isn't
unreadable in my copy."

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel

Liz,

I don't need glasses except for reading, so I'd see NOTHING if I held it
up to my nose. [:D] I can see the print more clearly at 20 paces,
except it's too small to read at that distance.

Joan

--- In , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Joan, I'm 54 so I am there with you. i have varifocals which are
supposed to negate the need for reading glasses but I still take them
off and hold the book right up to my nose!
>
> (Maybe that's the answer?)
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Joan u2nohoo@...
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 24 May, 2010 17:27:16
> Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous
ramblings on several topics
>
> Â
> Liz, It's probably because I'm of an age where I must use reading
> glasses to read normal print, but I found that after reading that
small
> type for about a half hour, I had to get a magnifying glass in order
to
> continue reading. I made the effort because the book was so
interesting
> and valuable to me.
>
> liz williams ferrymansdaughter@ wrote: "Well I thought the print
> was a bit small - and certainly smaller than in any of my other
> paperbacks, fiction or non fiction - Â but it certainly isn't
> unreadable in my copy."
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
> Fiction/Novel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Doc M wrote:
> > I find the gulf between 'popular' and academic history extremely worrying: the 'pops' get all the marketing and publicity thrown at them, but are generally not trained in historical research method. I'm also working a lot on the Third Crusade era at present. I found that most of the 'pops' in the field are English Literature graduates, who tend to use a 1950s secondary source (Runciman) as if he were a primary source. His work has been largely overturned by academic work since then, but I've tracked a small but significant factual error he made being repeated and embellished by popular writers from the 1970s into the 21C, showing clearly that none of them have used the primary sources on this.
> >
> > What depresses me is that many academic historians don't feel it's worthwhile getting into a scrap about this, as if it's beneath them to devote too much time to demolishing popular myths and misconceptions. As a result, the general readership is still wandering about with misleading notions of the past, based on outdated scholarship and Sirs Walter and Ridley Scott (whom I'm starting to see as twins separated by a couple of centuries!).
> > best wishes,

Carol responds:
As a PhD lit., I'm not quite sure how to respond to this post. Some of us do use historical sources (I spent five weeks in England to study unpublished nineteenth-century manuscripts and incorporate them into my dissertation on an inaccurate biography of Percy Bysshe Shelley that subsequent biographers and literary critics have used too uncritically. I think the capacity for historical research depends partly on training, partly on individual inclination and intellectual integrity, and partly on access to materials. (Those of us who live in Arizona are at a distinct disadvantage in researching English historical figures of any century.) On the other hand, if I could find the time and money to travel to Massachusetts, I could find sufficient historical materials to write either a well-researched historical novel or a nonfiction study (popular or academic) of my ancestor, Martha Carrier (hanged at the Salem witch trials). Of course, there's a great deal less historical material available on her than there is on Richard III.

My point is simply that it seems unfair to point the finger at English majors. It was studying Shakespeare's "history" plays (and discovering, to begin with, that Richard was three years old at the time of a battle that he's depicted as fighting in, along with other historical inaccuracies, not to mention skepticism regarding his bodily deformities, that led me to question the traditional view of Richard and find out what manner of man he really was.

I agree, however, that historical novels in general (with a few notable exceptions such as "The Sunne in Splendour"--and even it incorporates elements from Shakespeare and More) tend to be inadequately researched and written to entertain rather than to inform. Still, a good historical novel (specifically one that presents Richard III in a favorable or at least an objective light), even if it doesn't incorporate the latest scholarly research, can serve a useful purpose, arousing curiosity about Richard (or other historical figures) and helping to clear away the fog of lies and distortions created by Tudor historians and perpetuated through More and Shakespeare.

As for academic historians not caring to demolish popular myths, that's a much more serious problem and one of particular significance to those of us interested in trying to determine who Richard really was. I've read articles in "The Ricardian" that might have been written by anti-Ricardians considering that they use More as a source for the execution of Hastings! And I was astonished to see how many reviewers found A. J. Pollard's "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower" compelling and objective. Pollard may believe that he's objectively analyzing Richard, but his preconceptions about Richard's greed and ambition make objectivity impossible.

Carol, who has been reading old "Ricardians" and discarding the ones that don't deal with Richard at all

"justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote: "...On the other hand, if I could
find the time and money to travel to Massachusetts, I could find
sufficient historical materials to write either a well-researched
historical novel or a nonfiction study (popular or academic) of my
ancestor, Martha Carrier (hanged at the Salem witch trials)..."

You might give a look at The Afflicted Girls
<http://www.amazon.com/Afflicted-Girls-Suzy-Witten/dp/0615323138/> by
Suzy Witten about the witch hunts in Salem. I have the book but have yet
to read it, so I don't know if Martha Carrier is mentioned in Witten's
book. It's received some very good reviews and just won a Silver medal
for Historical Fiction in the IPPY Book Awards.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel

Annette Carson wrote:
>
> Hi Carole - Sorry about your computer crash. Regarding book prices on Amazon and the like, these prices of $50 or more, for a book that's in print at a quarter of the price, are entirely fictitious. The seller doesn't have any copies of the book but expects to obtain supplies, so if any buyer is so keen as to order at such a ridiculous price, they will simply be told that stocks will 'soon be available'.

Carol (no e) responds:

I'm planning to order from the seller with the lowest price, assuming that he or she has a good rating. I've never had any problems with those sellers in the past.

Annette:
> <snip> I defy anyone to say that it *simplifies* spelling to introduce e.g. the convention of -er for -re (as in 'center/theater' for British 'centre/theatre') and then leave 'massacre' unchanged. To my mind all Webster did was introduce a new rule with exceptions! And what was he doing reversing the endings of selected pairs of words like British 'practice' (noun) and 'practise' (verb), without changing ALL of them? If it's to be American usage to write 'practise' (noun) and 'practice' (verb), then why didn't he change 'advice' (noun) and 'advise' (verb)? <snip>

Carol:
Ah, well. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Regarding "Practice" as noun and verb being spelled the same way in American English, that only makes sense since they're pronounced the same way, in contrast to "advise" (soft c or "s" sound) and "advise" (hard s or or "z"/zed sound). It makes perfect sense (to me) to spell them differently--though logically they should have been spelled "advise" and "advize" respectively.

Annette:
> What I most regret is the loss of diphthongs, or I should say 'selected diphthongs', since they are retained in proper names like Michael, Raphael, etc. Do Americans write Daedalus or Dedalus? 'Oedipus Rex' or 'Edipus Rex'? I don't think I ever heard of an 'edipus complex'! Again, it's a pseudo-simplification that merely introduces new rules with exceptions you have to learn. Apparently you guys are not considered too orthographically-challenged (;-) to be able to cope with 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' (the brand name), but when you look inside, you get 'encyclopedia'. It's even more confusing when we Brits look under 'A' in the dictionary for 'aesthetic', while you look under 'E' for 'esthetic'. I could go on, but I'm sure anyone still reading this must be glassy-eyed by now!

Carol:
We retain some diphthongs, we just don't have a key on our keyboards that treats them as a single letter. (In Word, of course, you can insert them using the Insert menu, but that's useful only for Old English. I'm not at all sure that the ae in Michael or Raphael (both Hebrew names) was ever a diphthong. In any case, although I occasionally encounter the egregious misspelling "Micheal," I've never seen Raphael misspelled, possibly because in American English, it's pronounced RAF ay el.

I personally prefer the old-fashioned (or British) spelling of "archaeology" but the American one for "encyclopedia." (I was taught that "ae" in Latin should be pronounced "ay" in any case--maybe the Americans and the British differ in that regard, too.

Anyway, no point in arguing here--or rather, expressing our preferences. I have my regrets about certain changes in the English language, too. (Why has "gender," a grammatical term, replaced "sex," a biological term, for the two sexes, male and female? Well, I know why, but I don't like it. Nor do I like the substitution of "issue" for "problem," as if having a problem is something to be ashamed of.

But those are just my pet peeves, which seem not to bother anyone else.

Annette:
> Re legitimizing (or legitimising!), this was not such a big deal in mediaeval times, and could be done, especially if you had the right connections, to ensure inheritance, etc. Obviously everyone in 1485 knew that all of Edward IV's offspring had been rendered illegitimate by his bigamy, so it was not a brilliant idea for the king to marry one of them, especially if she was his niece. However, it *could* be done (uncle/niece was not expressly forbidden in Leviticus, unlike aunt/nephew), and she *could* have been singled out for legitimation as the king's bride - not because she wasn't a bastard after all, but by special magnanimity of the king and the Church. In today's jargon this would have been blue-sky thinking, but I believe the council would have considered it remiss not to put all possible names on the list of candidates, including the unlikely ones.

Carol:
But if it could be done for Elizabeth, it could be done for her brothers, Edward and Richard, which would make Edward (dead or alive) the rightful king. And Richard III, of course, could not allow that. And I would think that would be obvious to anyone who knew him.

Annette:
> David Starkey? Starkey is a self-important Tudor specialist much beloved of the History Channel, very mannered and waspish, who loves to badmouth Richard III even though it's not his period. He can be seen in the UK television "Trial of Richard III" trying a bit too hard to be clever and suffering a neat put-down by the counsel for the defence (aka 'Mr Dillon'). In his evidence at the "Trial", Starkey tried to claim that the fact of Edward V's succession (sorry, I think I said coronation previously) 'wipes out all illegitimacy, as every other obstacle to the throne'. His authority was the mid sixteenth-century lawyer Sergeant Plowden, and his precedent was the accession of Elizabeth I who succeeded even though she had been bastardized in 1536. A bit much, I think, to reverse-engineer this (as Joan would say) back to 1483!
> Regards, Annette

Carol:
I haven't seen the trial. I suppose I should. Aren't all the Tudor historians "self-important," or at least smugly convinced that Ricardians are trying to "whitewash" Richard? (It's interesting, for example, to see Antonia Fraser going to great lengths to discuss precontracts in relation to the Tudors and yet labeling the the Eleanor Butler contract as "the old canard."

Carol, who really wants to talk about Richard and apologizes for the digression on American vs. British spelling

Many apologies for mis-spelling your name, Carol.

I will make these comments brief (sighs of relief all round, I'm sure). Re spelling, you comment 'Regarding "Practice" as noun and verb being spelled the same way in American English, that only makes sense' - yes, that would make sense, as I said - why are they not? It's "Practice" as a verb and "Practise" as a noun. Which is a reverse of how they're spelled in English. I.e. in English we write: 'It is my practice to practise daily'. Noah Webster changed this to: 'It is my practise to practice daily'. What gain was there in this, I wonder, other than confusion?

Now, regarding the possible legitimation of Elizabeth of York had she been Richard's queen (which I'm not recommending!), it was something that would have had to be applied for/enacted for the specific purpose of her new status. You say 'But if it could be done for Elizabeth, it could be done for her brothers' - yes, it could be. But who was going to do it, and why? The point of legitimizing Elizabeth, if it was thought desirable to do so, would have been so that there should be no stain on the queen and her offspring. Importantly, it would not automatically have made her, or her siblings, heirs of Edward IV. Inability to inherit was the chief characteristic of a bastard. When someone was legitimized, this wasn't automatically reversed. The easiest way to illustrate this is to look at the legitimation of the Beauforts, which did not make them heirs of their father, John of Gaunt (see my pages 49-52). They were given precisely what was set out in the Act of Legitimation, and no more. So although they were given a new family name and a new title, together with the ability to transmit these (and anything else they acquired) downward to their OWN heirs, they did not retrospectively become Plantagenets.

All this does not detract from the fact that by making Elizabeth his queen, Richard would have called unwelcome attention to the missing boys, and legitimizing her would have brought their status up for precisely the debate we are having here, in return for no discernible gain. However, it WAS certainly considered feasible by some people, otherwise there wouldn't have been a rumour that was sufficiently widely believed for Richard to have to refute it.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: Introduction/miscellaneous ramblings (OT)



Annette Carson wrote:
>
> Hi Carole - Sorry about your computer crash. Regarding book prices on Amazon and the like, these prices of $50 or more, for a book that's in print at a quarter of the price, are entirely fictitious. The seller doesn't have any copies of the book but expects to obtain supplies, so if any buyer is so keen as to order at such a ridiculous price, they will simply be told that stocks will 'soon be available'.

Carol (no e) responds:

I'm planning to order from the seller with the lowest price, assuming that he or she has a good rating. I've never had any problems with those sellers in the past.

Annette:
> <snip> I defy anyone to say that it *simplifies* spelling to introduce e.g. the convention of -er for -re (as in 'center/theater' for British 'centre/theatre') and then leave 'massacre' unchanged. To my mind all Webster did was introduce a new rule with exceptions! And what was he doing reversing the endings of selected pairs of words like British 'practice' (noun) and 'practise' (verb), without changing ALL of them? If it's to be American usage to write 'practise' (noun) and 'practice' (verb), then why didn't he change 'advice' (noun) and 'advise' (verb)? <snip>

Carol:
Ah, well. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Regarding "Practice" as noun and verb being spelled the same way in American English, that only makes sense since they're pronounced the same way, in contrast to "advise" (soft c or "s" sound) and "advise" (hard s or or "z"/zed sound). It makes perfect sense (to me) to spell them differently--though logically they should have been spelled "advise" and "advize" respectively.

Annette:
> What I most regret is the loss of diphthongs, or I should say 'selected diphthongs', since they are retained in proper names like Michael, Raphael, etc. Do Americans write Daedalus or Dedalus? 'Oedipus Rex' or 'Edipus Rex'? I don't think I ever heard of an 'edipus complex'! Again, it's a pseudo-simplification that merely introduces new rules with exceptions you have to learn. Apparently you guys are not considered too orthographically-challenged (;-) to be able to cope with 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' (the brand name), but when you look inside, you get 'encyclopedia'. It's even more confusing when we Brits look under 'A' in the dictionary for 'aesthetic', while you look under 'E' for 'esthetic'. I could go on, but I'm sure anyone still reading this must be glassy-eyed by now!

Carol:
We retain some diphthongs, we just don't have a key on our keyboards that treats them as a single letter. (In Word, of course, you can insert them using the Insert menu, but that's useful only for Old English. I'm not at all sure that the ae in Michael or Raphael (both Hebrew names) was ever a diphthong. In any case, although I occasionally encounter the egregious misspelling "Micheal," I've never seen Raphael misspelled, possibly because in American English, it's pronounced RAF ay el.

I personally prefer the old-fashioned (or British) spelling of "archaeology" but the American one for "encyclopedia." (I was taught that "ae" in Latin should be pronounced "ay" in any case--maybe the Americans and the British differ in that regard, too.

Anyway, no point in arguing here--or rather, expressing our preferences. I have my regrets about certain changes in the English language, too. (Why has "gender," a grammatical term, replaced "sex," a biological term, for the two sexes, male and female? Well, I know why, but I don't like it. Nor do I like the substitution of "issue" for "problem," as if having a problem is something to be ashamed of.

But those are just my pet peeves, which seem not to bother anyone else.

Annette:
> Re legitimizing (or legitimising!), this was not such a big deal in mediaeval times, and could be done, especially if you had the right connections, to ensure inheritance, etc. Obviously everyone in 1485 knew that all of Edward IV's offspring had been rendered illegitimate by his bigamy, so it was not a brilliant idea for the king to marry one of them, especially if she was his niece. However, it *could* be done (uncle/niece was not expressly forbidden in Leviticus, unlike aunt/nephew), and she *could* have been singled out for legitimation as the king's bride - not because she wasn't a bastard after all, but by special magnanimity of the king and the Church. In today's jargon this would have been blue-sky thinking, but I believe the council would have considered it remiss not to put all possible names on the list of candidates, including the unlikely ones.

Carol:
But if it could be done for Elizabeth, it could be done for her brothers, Edward and Richard, which would make Edward (dead or alive) the rightful king. And Richard III, of course, could not allow that. And I would think that would be obvious to anyone who knew him.

Annette:
> David Starkey? Starkey is a self-important Tudor specialist much beloved of the History Channel, very mannered and waspish, who loves to badmouth Richard III even though it's not his period. He can be seen in the UK television "Trial of Richard III" trying a bit too hard to be clever and suffering a neat put-down by the counsel for the defence (aka 'Mr Dillon'). In his evidence at the "Trial", Starkey tried to claim that the fact of Edward V's succession (sorry, I think I said coronation previously) 'wipes out all illegitimacy, as every other obstacle to the throne'. His authority was the mid sixteenth-century lawyer Sergeant Plowden, and his precedent was the accession of Elizabeth I who succeeded even though she had been bastardized in 1536. A bit much, I think, to reverse-engineer this (as Joan would say) back to 1483!
> Regards, Annette

Carol:
I haven't seen the trial. I suppose I should. Aren't all the Tudor historians "self-important," or at least smugly convinced that Ricardians are trying to "whitewash" Richard? (It's interesting, for example, to see Antonia Fraser going to great lengths to discuss precontracts in relation to the Tudors and yet labeling the the Eleanor Butler contract as "the old canard."

Carol, who really wants to talk about Richard and apologizes for the digression on American vs. British spelling

Carol earlier: "...On the other hand, if I could find the time and money to travel to Massachusetts, I could find sufficient historical materials to write either a well-researched historical novel or a nonfiction study (popular or academic) of my ancestor, Martha Carrier (hanged at the Salem witch trials)..."

Joan responded:
> You might give a look at The Afflicted Girls
> <http://www.amazon.com/Afflicted-Girls-Suzy-Witten/dp/0615323138/ by Suzy Witten about the witch hunts in Salem. I have the book but have yet to read it, so I don't know if Martha Carrier is mentioned in Witten's book. It's received some very good reviews and just won a Silver medal for Historical Fiction in the IPPY Book Awards.

Carol responds:
Apparently not; I did a "search inside this book" for "Martha Carrier" at Amazon.com. Martha does have her own historical novel called "The Heretic's Daughter," narrated by Martha's daughter, Sarah, late in life. Unfortunately, the choice of narrator is flawed since Sarah was only seven when she was forced/coerced/convinced(?) to testify against her mother. The premise that she did so on her mother's orders to save her life is interesting but unprovable.

In any case, Martha Carrier is quite famous in her own right but I don't know how much information other than the testimony against her is available on her. I do know that her birth date is contested, with two dates nine years apart given by different sources and she was at least twenty, possibly twenty-nine, years younger than her husband, a gigantic Welshman rumored to be the executioner of Charles I.

Martha Carrier was a victim of Richard III syndrome, by which I mean that she was unfairly maligned by her enemies. Cotton Mather called her a "rampant hag" (she was no more than forty-nine years old and may have been only forty) and said that the Devil had promised to make her the Queen of Hell. Here's the record of her "trial": http://www.hawthorneinsalem.org/Literature/Quakers&Witches/YoungGoodmanBrown/MMD826.html Hawthorne repeats these libels in "Young Goodman Brown." Yet Martha was the only person charged in the witch trials who maintained her innocence throughout, never recanting, and actually arguing with the judges.

Carol, who's being called to an "experimental" lunch cooked by a sixteen-year-old

Annette Carson wrote:
>
> Many apologies for mis-spelling your name, Carol.

Carol:
No problem.

Annette:
> I will make these comments brief (sighs of relief all round, I'm sure). Re spelling, you comment 'Regarding "Practice" as noun and verb being spelled the same way in American English, that only makes sense' - yes, that would make sense, as I said - why are they not? It's "Practice" as a verb and "Practise" as a noun. Which is a reverse of how they're spelled in English. I.e. in English we write: 'It is my practice to practise daily'. Noah Webster changed this to: 'It is my practise to practice daily'. What gain was there in this, I wonder, other than confusion?

Carol:
Are you sure about Webster's spellings in this instance? The noun and the verb are *currently* spelled and pronounced the same way ("practice" + PRAK tiss) in American English. As I said, it makes sense to spell them the same way if they're pronounced the same way (as they are), and to spell them "practise" would require pronouncing them PRAK tize. (In any case, Webster changed -ise to -ize in the case of verbs with that pronunciation--again, an attempt to make the spelling match the sound.) BTW, another "improvement" in my view is his change from "cheque" to "check." Webster (a flawed human being like the rest of us) was trying to make spelling match pronunciation a little more closely. At least, unlike George Orwell, he didn't advocate a simplified vocabulary (Basic English)!

I don't want to argue with you, though. We'll never convince each other. I just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding regarding "practice," which has only one spelling and pronunciation in American English (in contrast to "advice" and "advise").

annette;
> Now, regarding the possible legitimation of Elizabeth of York had she been Richard's queen (which I'm not recommending!), it was something that would have had to be applied for/enacted for the specific purpose of her new status.

Carol:
As I understand it, she could have been legitimized under canon law, but not under English common law, which was what mattered with regard to her status (and that of her brothers) as heir to the throne--and which is one reason why Henry Tydder had Titulus Regius burned unread (the other being that Richard was in essence elected king, making Henry, not Richard, the usurper). I'm not an expert on precontracts, however, and I can't recall where I read about that canon law/common law distinction (possibly in an old Ricardian). (I suspect that English common law was of no concern to Elizabeth's intended husband, Prince Manuel of Portugal!)

Annette:
> You say 'But if it could be done for Elizabeth, it could be done for her brothers' - yes, it could be. But who was going to do it, and why? The point of legitimizing Elizabeth, if it was thought desirable to do so, would have been so that there should be no stain on the queen and her offspring. Importantly, it would not automatically have made her, or her siblings, heirs of Edward IV. Inability to inherit was the chief characteristic of a bastard. When someone was legitimized, this wasn't automatically reversed. The easiest way to illustrate this is to look at the legitimation of the Beauforts, which did not make them heirs of their father, John of Gaunt (see my pages 49-52). They were given precisely what was set out in the Act of Legitimation, and no more. So although they were given a new family name and a new title, together with the ability to transmit these (and anything else they acquired) downward to their OWN heirs, they did not retrospectively become Plantagenets.

Carol responds:
I suppose my point was that if it was simple to obtain legitimacy for Elizabeth, it would be equally simple to do so for her brothers at the point when the precontract was first discovered. But if the boys would still be ineligible as heirs to the throne, there would, of course, be no point--and Edward V's supporters (during the Protectorate) had no choice but to suppress the truth. However, as I understand it, the legitimized Beauforts weren't automatically barred from the throne. That was Henry IV's doing, through an act of Parliament that some historians (mostly pro-Tudor) have criticized as illegal. I do know, however, that the Beauforts (before Margaret) never pressed their own claim to the throne and loyally supported the Lancastrian line (which, in any case, preceded theirs, legitimate aside). It was only when all the male Lancastrian heirs *and* all the male Beauforts were dead that the Tydder faction (Margaret, Henry, Jasper, et al.) pressed its shaky claim.

Annette:
> All this does not detract from the fact that by making Elizabeth his queen, Richard would have called unwelcome attention to the missing boys, and legitimizing her would have brought their status up for precisely the debate we are having here, in return for no discernible gain.

Carol:
Exactly, which is why I'm certain that Richard himself never considered the possibility--or rejected it immediately if it crossed his mind--whereas it appears from the signatures and mottos in two of her books (setting aside the paraphrased letter in Buck) that Elizabeth of York *did* consider and hope for it (which would explain the rumors is she indiscreetly expressed her hopes).

Annette:
However, it WAS certainly considered feasible by some people, otherwise there wouldn't have been a rumour that was sufficiently widely believed for Richard to have to refute it.

Carol:
I'm not denying that there was a rumor. Of course, there was or, as you say, he wouldn't have felt obligated to refute it. But that doesn't mean that members of the council proposed. If the Croyland Chronicler is to be believed, Ratcliffe and (was it Catesby?) opposed the idea (from concern for their own interests, not Richard's). But quite possibly, they had only heard the rumors--as had Henry Tydder, who knew the advantages to *himself* of marrying Elizabeth or York and probably thought that Richard was acting to thwart him (perhaps attributing his own mentality to Richard). But, like the rumors of Edward IV's bastardy or the murder of Richard's nephews, that rumor needed no solid foundation--only fear or malice and speculation--to gain ground. Maybe the eclipse on the day of Queen Anne's death had something to do with it.

Carol, whose copy of "The Maligned King" is making its slow progress to her door (walking on its own splindly little legs, apparently!)