Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Sir Thomas More!

> Thomas More...from what I've read, I have a feeling he wasn't really going
> for an accurate biography with his History of Richard III. I'm so happy I
can
> talk about this, Thomas More is my area of expertise lol. . . .It wasn't
even completed so I don't think he even intended for it to be
> published. I think he was writing it as something to appease his king,
with
> some hints about himself in it, as his description of Richard III can also
go
> for himself as Erasmus stated that Thomas also had one shoulder that was
> slightly higher than the other!

Fascinating! I have had Peter Ackroyd's biography of More on my shelf for
ages, meaning to read it. It is hard not to like More though apparently he
may have frizzled some heretics.

Did you ever come across the intriguing Jack Leslau theory about the
portrait of More and his family?

Jessica

In a message dated 12/31/2002 5:20:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
la@... writes:


> Fascinating! I have had Peter Ackroyd's biography of More on my shelf for
> ages, meaning to read it. It is hard not to like More though apparently he
> may have frizzled some heretics.
>
> Did you ever come across the intriguing Jack Leslau theory about the
> portrait of More and his family?

I own Ackroyd's biography. It's very informative but in the beginning he
turns away from Thomas to talk about the church at the time, the legal
system, but I guess that's just to lend some insight into the time period. I
haven't gotten up to the part where he talks about Richard III though. In
Richard Marius's biography of Thomas More, he devotes a whole chapter to it.
And not to start another argument, but Thomas More only ordered I think the
burnings of six heretics while he was Chancellor. And I also believe that it
was Henry VIII who ordered the burning of William Tyndale but don't quote me
on that. Thomas More was doing what he thought was right-saving the heretics'
souls rather than have them live and be damned. Sounds slightly foolish
nowadays, but that was the beliefs of people back then.
We had a big discussion on the Tudor list about the portrait. The original
portrait by Holbein is gone. It might have been destroyed after Thomas's
unfortunate execution. There's a website out there that analyzes the copy
that exists (painted in the 1600's I think) and how it shows that one of
Edward's heirs survives in the household of Thomas More as John Clement (the
ward who later married Margaret Giggs, Thomas More's adopted daughter. Both
ventured into the field of medicine and made themselves well known in that
field too). However, it could have been the personal belief of the painter
because in Holbein's original sketch of the portrait that exists, the man
standing in the doorway in the painting is not present at all in the sketch.
It's interesting to read into the theory though!
*Vicky*
"But I love this troupe of players, this company, the regulars on Saturday
Night Live. Especially that Jimmy Fallon, isn't he cute!"- The great Sir Ian
McKellen

there are the Woodviilles and Hastings during the protectorate.
But Richard hardly has a 'long record of killing his enemies.'--- In
, hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote

What about at Barnet, Tewkesbury, Scotland, 1482, Buckingham,
Richard's brother-in-law, at Bosworth?

The point I'm making is that Richard was a KILLER and perfectly
capable of killing his 'bastard' nephews.

Unfortunately, whichever way killing was dressed up by hereditary
monarchs, dictators or some of our 'democratic' tyrants, killing was
killing. I doubt if Richard, with his long experience under his
tyrant brother (who was also used to killing & generally abusing his
power - particularly over women), would've thought that secretly
killing 2 troublesome bastards was especially out of order. Keeping
the means of killing a secret is what most murderers do & after all
this time, people are still guessing, so it wasn't such a bad idea!

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 12/31/2002 5:20:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> la@l... writes:
>
>
It is hard not to like More though apparently he> > may have frizzled
some heretics.
but Thomas More only ordered I think the burnings of six heretics
while he was Chancellor. And I also believe that it> was Henry VIII
who ordered the burning of William Tyndale but don't
quote me> on that. Thomas More was doing what he thought was
right-saving the heretics'> souls rather than have them live and be
damned. Sounds slightly foolish > nowadays, but that was the beliefs
of people back then.

I too like More. The heretics weren't burned simply because of
differences on points of Theology, but because of the politics of
Protestant princes attacking Catholics. There was a general blood
bath, which still goes on!

More was more interested in the after life than this and we too have
some 'foolish' ideas, e.g. the idea that one country has thr right to
bully another & to back it up using weapons which would've been
unthinkable in More's day.

Wow and I thought most people on here would be hostile to Thomas More. Shows
I was wrong lol. Thomas More didn't intend for his book to be read as an
accurate, historical biography (he put his own dialogues between people in
it), yet Alison Weir used it as a source in The Princes in the Tower ugh.

vQueen Victoriav

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> Wow and I thought most people on here would be hostile to Thomas
More. Shows
> I was wrong lol. Thomas More didn't intend for his book to be read
as an
> accurate, historical biography (he put his own dialogues between
people in
> it), yet Alison Weir used it as a source in The Princes in the Tower
ugh.
>
> vQueen Victoriav


It just goes to show you. More seemed to have a love & understanding
for people based upon a true Christian perspective.

Weir, is that as is weirdo? was wrong to quote him as necessarily
accurate about the princes in the Tower. I think More was probably
using Richard as a scarely concealed satirical 'go' at More's present
monarch: the super gross Henry VIII, who was as tyrannical as one can
get. Yet More does give accounts which seem genuine: his account of
the way kindly Mistress Shore was persecuted by Richard, despite the
fact that Richard had used women out of wedlock himself. He fathered
2, maybe 3, bastards. It's also interesting that More could write
about Richard as though he was CERTAIN that he was the murderer. If a
wide audience didn't already believe this, it would've been a fatuous
thing to do.

He sounded so certain, yet he was only 5 when the whole ordeal took place.
Your idea of it being a satirical poke at Henry VIII makes sense. Thomas More
was always hinting at his distaste of Henry...in Utopia about his avaricious
lifestyle corrupting society, even in his Dialogue of Comfort Against
Tribulation when two Hungarians are being persecuted for their faith by the
Turkish sultan. I kind of see how he could compare Richard to Henry. And like
I said, his description of Richard III could fit himself too...hard-visage,
one shoulder higher than the other, short of stature. Thomas More was a very
complex person. A humanist scholar yet there's satirical undertones in his
writings.

vQueen Victoriav

At 01:43 AM 1/1/03 -0000, you wrote:

>What about at Barnet, Tewkesbury, Scotland, 1482, Buckingham,
>Richard's brother-in-law, at Bosworth?
>
>The point I'm making is that Richard was a KILLER and perfectly
>capable of killing his 'bastard' nephews.
>

I think most people would acknowledge a difference between a killer and a
warrior, although the latter will indeed kill in the line of duty.

There are two contemporary accounts of rumors that he killed him, one
contemporary account of rumors that he had them in a secure locataion, and
one piece of stage rhetoric from France. I'd say the evidence, either way,
is pretty thin.

I wouldn't argue with your confidence for any position other than "we don't
know what happened and the evidence is scanty."


--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

At 03:44 AM 1/1/03 -0000, you wrote:

It's also interesting that More could write
>about Richard as though he was CERTAIN that he was the murderer. If a
>wide audience didn't already believe this, it would've been a fatuous
>thing to do.
>

Well, he also wrote that one of the confessed murderers of the boys was
walking around at liberty thirty years after the fact. That's a pretty
fatuous thing to write, too, isn't it? I mean, wasn't Tyrell executed for
"his part" in the "murders"?


--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 03:44 AM 1/1/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
> It's also interesting that More could write
> >about Richard as though he was CERTAIN that he was the murderer.
If a
> >wide audience didn't already believe this, it would've been a
fatuous
> >thing to do.
> >
>
> Well, he also wrote that one of the confessed murderers of the boys
was> walking around at liberty thirty years after the fact. That's a
pretty> fatuous thing to write, too, isn't it? I mean, wasn't Tyrell
executed for> "his part" in the "murders"?
>
Murderers aren't always caught. It's possible that Tyrell wasn't the
actual murderer. The fact is that most people believed Richard
CAPABLE of killing the princes. A reason why Henry VII didn't bring
Tyrell to justice was that (a) he found out about it late in the day
(b) LIKE RICHARD, he had a good reason to see these 2 out of the way.
Henry 7, who lives up to HIS portrait as cold and crafty, certainly
wasn't averse to Judicial murder, e.g. Warwick, 1499.

I know people rationalise war as against murder, but murder has its
reasons and war can be just as self-seeking & revengeful as murder.

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 01:43 AM 1/1/03 -0000, you wrote:
There are two contemporary accounts of rumors that he killed him, one
contemporary account of rumors that he had them in a secure
locataion, and one piece of stage rhetoric from France. I'd say the
evidence ,either way, is pretty thin. I wouldn't argue with your
confidence for any position other than "we don't know what happened
and the evidence is scanty."

Yes, Mancini suspected Richard capable of the murders, Croyland in a
latin tag says that Richard destroyed Edward's progeny, the
Chancellor of France in 1484 openly declares Richard a murderer of his
nephews, Richard never issues a denial, the immediate histories which
follow in the Tudor period take it as read that Richard was
responsible, Richard, apart from his share of responsibility for
killing in the family dispute over kingship and ownership of land, had
arranged the illegal (without trial) executions of Rivers, Vaughan,
Grey, Haut & Hastings. Richard would be the first monarch NOT to kill
a deposed predecessor, despite his obvious lack of aversion to
shedding blood, even though nobody denies that Isabella of France was
responsible for the red hot poker job on Edward II, that Henry IV
probably had Richard II starved to death & Edward IV had poor old
Henry VI battered to death and there's even contemporary evidence to
indicate that Richard himself supervised this act on behalf of his
older brother.

Richard had Henry VI's body removed to a better tomb, he had Hastings
buried also at Windsor & his widow well cared for and Thomas More
suggests that Richard was troubled by a conscience over the death of
the princes. This sounds convincing. Richard was a man with a
conscience, he wasn't a psychopathic serial killer as some have
suggested, but nevertheless he was aware of REALPOLITIK that it was
kill or be killed regarding enemies. Edward V after his
bastardization by Richard was certainly an enemy.

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> He sounded so certain, yet he was only 5 when the whole ordeal took
place.> Your idea of it being a satirical poke at Henry VIII makes
sense. Thomas More > was always hinting at his distaste of Henry...in
Utopia about his avaricious > lifestyle corrupting society, even in
his Dialogue of Comfort Against> Tribulation when two Hungarians are
being persecuted for their faith by the> Turkish sultan. I kind of see
how he could compare Richard to Henry. And like> I said, his
description of Richard III could fit himself too...hard-visage,
> one shoulder higher than the other, short of stature. Thomas More
was a very> complex person. A humanist scholar yet there's satirical
undertones in his> writings.
>
> vQueen Victoriav


More's account of Richard is (a) unfinished, there's loads of blanks
in the text. (b) and is satirical about Kingship.

Power corrupts, as it still does and More probably struggled to
reconcile his deeply held religious view (he almost became a monk)
with his own penchant for power.

With Henry VIII, there was a lot to be satirical about. A cold,
murderous ego maniac: a combination of the worst characteristics of
his Father & maternal Grandfather.

I haven't gotten to read More's RIchard III yet. It's on the Society's
webpage, right? I did read Utopia for a paper I had to write for school and
in some spots it's so obvious that he's attacking Henry's avariciousness,
although he praises him at the beginning.

vQueen Victoriav

Thomas More's penchant for power? (forgive me for not quoting, my computer
can't highlight text). I always thought that Thomas More was one of the least
ambitious people at court.

vQueen Victoriav

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> Thomas More's penchant for power? (forgive me for not quoting, my
computer> can't highlight text). I always thought that Thomas More was
one of the least ambitious people at court.
>
> vQueen Victoriav

He must've had some craving for power as he became Lord Chancellor of
England, the equivalent of a Secretary of State, but this was
obedient to his spiritual values, as he wasn't prepared to prostitute
his beliefs to every whim of his odious King.

It's also interesting that More could write
> about Richard as though he was CERTAIN that he was the murderer. If a
> wide audience didn't already believe this, it would've been a fatuous
> thing to do.
>

As I understand it, there are two editions of More's Historia: one is a
later edition "completed" by his son-in-law, Richard Grafton. I just dug
out my copy of the History. Before More describes the murder of the
Princes, there is the following statement: "Whose death and final infortune
hathe hatheles so far comen in question, that some remain yet in doubt,
whither they were in his days destroyde or no."

More then qualifies this statement by saying that the uncertainty was caused
on the one hand by the likes of Perkin Warbeck "but for that also yt all
thynges wer in late days so couertly demeaned, one thing pretended and
another ment, that there was nothyng so plaine and openly proved, but that
yet for the comen custome of close and covert dealing, men had it ever
inwardely suspect, as many well counterfaited jewels make ye true
mistrusted."

An interesting question: by "late days" is More referring to Richard's
reign?

Another trope that recurs throughout More: "Some remain yet in doubt..."
"men had it ever inwardly suspect..."

More then goes on to say that he will write more on the subject if he ever
writes a history of Henry VII or Perkin Warbeck!

More then goes on to describe the murder of the Princes in enormous
circumstantial detail "After that way yt I have so hard by suche men and by
such meanes, as methinketh it wer hard but it should be true."

(All that stuff with (a) Brackenbury refusing and (b) a nameless page
suggesting Sir James Tyrell to Richard while the latter was on the loo ( a
charming scatological detail worthy of Martin Luther).

I agree with Mr W and Victoria that it is a satire on kingship; I have
sometimes wondered if it was also in some way a satire on the writing on
history, with a wealth of circumstantial detail set against these repeatedly
cited sources who More never names...

Jessica

I'm really going to have to get Richard Marius's biography of Thomas More
again. He spent a lot of time on this topic and I never got up to that part.
Then again maybe I should read More's thing himself so I can analyze it lol.

vQueen Victoriav

> I'm really going to have to get Richard Marius's biography of Thomas More
> again. He spent a lot of time on this topic and I never got up to that
part.
> Then again maybe I should read More's thing himself so I can analyze it
lol.
>
> vQueen Victoriav
>
Me too! I have just been discussing the whole issue with my Dad. I am
pretty sure that the "late days" More was talking about (as in "all
thynges wer in late days so couertly demeaned, one thing pretended and
another ment, that there was nothyng so plaine and openly proved, but that
yet for the comen custome of close and covert dealing, men had it ever
inwardely suspect, as many well counterfaited jewels make ye true
mistrusted") were the reign of Henry VII.

As I see it, late days means recently. So More is basically saying that the
story of the murder he relates is the one he (probably) believes to be true
but he qualifies it by saying that there was an awful lot of obfuscation
about in the days of Henry VII.

Jessica

At 01:18 PM 1/1/03 EST, you wrote:
>I haven't gotten to read More's RIchard III yet. It's on the Society's
>webpage, right?

Yes, it is, together with Marius' chapter on the work and Jeremy Potter's
Ricardian take on the work.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

At 09:34 PM 1/1/03 -0000, you wrote:

>
>(All that stuff with (a) Brackenbury refusing and (b) a nameless page
>suggesting Sir James Tyrell to Richard while the latter was on the loo ( a
>charming scatological detail worthy of Martin Luther).
>

More was no slouch when it came to scatalogical invective. I'm more likely
to say that Luther wrote a thing or two worthy of More. But, then, I'm a
Lutheran, and we all know the Lutherans use white rose imagery (*smile*).


--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

At 05:02 PM 1/1/03 EST, you wrote:
>I'm really going to have to get Richard Marius's biography of Thomas More
>again. He spent a lot of time on this topic and I never got up to that part.
>Then again maybe I should read More's thing himself so I can analyze it lol.
>

Richard Marius was a wonderful human being and I miss him. A couple years
before he died, he gave us permission to put his chapter about the History
of Richard III on the American Branch website. See the "online library"
section.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Oh my in Ackroyd's biography of More he had this whole thing that Thomas More
wrote as a reaction to Luther. He basically curses Luther out....all in
Latin, which I'm impressed by the most. He calls him a knave, a "pestilent
little friar" says someone should, ahem, use Luther's mouth as a loo, implies
that Luther celebrates mass on the loo, it's crazy. Thus ends my discussion
on Thomas More because I noticed I took this thing way off topic

vQueen Victoriav

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> Oh my in Ackroyd's biography of More he had this whole thing that
Thomas More
> wrote as a reaction to Luther. He basically curses Luther out....all
in
> Latin, which I'm impressed by the most. He calls him a knave, a
"pestilent
> little friar" says someone should, ahem, use Luther's mouth as a
loo, implies
> that Luther celebrates mass on the loo, it's crazy. Thus ends my
discussion
> on Thomas More because I noticed I took this thing way off topic
>
> vQueen Victoriav
>
Well, we could always call it the Thomas More Society instead.
Perhaps, you're a Thomas More groupie?

willison2001 <willison2001@...>01/01/2003
4:44willison2001@...

> kindly Mistress Shore was persecuted by Richard, despite the
> fact that Richard had used women out of wedlock himself
"Kindly"? she was the court bike during the reign of Edward IV, being passed
to Hastings on the king's death, in spite of Dorset's interest. As for
Richard's "persecution", he made her walk through London in a shift as a
penitent/sinner, then allowed her to marry one of his retainers. She lived
happily ever after.
Where do you get your info from?
Paul

[email protected]/12/2002 23:48hockeygirl1016@...

> And I also believe that it
> was Henry VIII who ordered the burning of William Tyndale but don't quote me
> on that.
his agents were responsible for the kidnapping and bringing back to England
a prisoner, so who ordered the burning is neither here nor there, as had
Tyndale not been in England courtesy of Thomas, he wouldn't have been tried
and executed. So More was certainly culpable. Nasty piece of work mr More
imho.
Paul

----------
> From: "willison2001 <willison2001@...>" <willison2001@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 01:43:21 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Back to the bastards.
>
> I doubt if Richard, with his long experience under his
> tyrant brother (who was also used to killing & generally abusing his
> power - particularly over women), would've thought that secretly
> killing 2 troublesome bastards was especially out of order.

Clearly a fan of the House of York!!!!!
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> willison2001 <willison2001@y...>01/01/2003
> 4:44willison2001@y...
>
> > kindly Mistress Shore was persecuted by Richard, despite the
> > fact that Richard had used women out of wedlock himself

> "Kindly"? she was the court bike during the reign of Edward IV,
being passed> to Hastings on the king's death, in spite of Dorset's
interest. As for> Richard's "persecution", he made her walk through
London in a shift as a> penitent/sinner, then allowed her to marry one
of his retainers. She lived> happily ever after.> Where do you get
your info from?
> Paul

More says she never hurt anyone as Mistress to Edward IV, despite her
position of influence. Richard certainly humiliated her when he'd
'had a bit on the side' himself, fathering 2 or 3 bastards. Richard
in a letter was also against Shore marrying Thomas Lynam. Shore ended
up penniless & neglected, according to More & I doubt if she was
'happy ever after.'

I'm not a 'fan' of the House of York. That would suggest that I see
them as perfect. Also, Thomas More could be hypocritical. It's a
common fault of people. Richard III being a good example.

I finally located that page with Richard's favorite
hymn and favorite prayer. Prayer is from Richard's
book of hours, also sited in my book on the religious
life of Richard III. Site has other bits of
information one didn't know, and information about a
novel about Richard III.

http://www.taheke.co.nz/VCprayer.html, and
http://www.taheke.co.nz/VCfacts.html.

Let me know if I've not spelled it right; it's the
original hoagy domain name.

New Zealand (nz, author of that page is in New
Zealand) must be something else. Have you all seen
The Two Towers yet? I didn't know it was large
enough to have a mountain range that appears in air
shots in the movie to rival the Alps. My housemate
says they have a vigorous environmental movement
there, as most of the place is still unsettled.

Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I finally located that page with Richard's favorite
hymn and favorite prayer. Prayer is from Richard's
book of hours, also Cited in my book on the religious
life of Richard III. Site has other bits of
information one didn't know, and information about a
novel about Richard III.

http://www.taheke.co.nz/VCprayer.html, and
http://www.taheke.co.nz/VCfacts.html.

Let me know if I've not spelled it right; it's the
original hoagy domain name.

New Zealand (nz, author of that page is in New
Zealand) must be something else. Have you all seen
The Two Towers yet? I didn't know it was large
enough to have a mountain range that appears in air
shots in the movie to rival the Alps. My housemate
says they have a vigorous environmental movement
there, as most of the place is still unsettled.

Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

willison2001 <willison2001@...>02/01/2003
16:04willison2001@...

> Richard certainly humiliated her when he'd
> 'had a bit on the side' himself, fathering 2 or 3 bastards.
not on the side as his bastards were from before he was married.
Richard
> in a letter was also against Shore marrying Thomas Lynam.
which if you read it shows Richard as having a wonderful, if dark, sense of
humour
>Shore ended
> up penniless & neglected, according to More
ah according to More
well there you go.
Paul
who knows when he hits a brick wall when he feels it!

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> willison2001 <willison2001@y...>02/01/2003
> 16:04willison2001@y...
>

> not on the side as his bastards were from before he was married.

But Richard was fond of criticising others for 'licentious' behaviour
& the production of bastards: Edward IV, Hastings, Dorset! He was
good at noting small faults in others, but not the large ones in
himself.

> Richard> > in a letter was also against Shore marrying Thomas
Lynam.> which if you read it shows Richard as having a wonderful, if
dark,sense of> humour

I must've missed his 'wonderful if dark sense of humour.' It sounded
to me as though Richard thought the solicitor simply should not marry
Jane.

> >Shore ended> > up penniless & neglected, according to More
> ah according to More> well there you go.


Well, if you don't beive a word that More wrote that's up to you.
Maybe he was a complete fantasist.

> who knows when he hits a brick wall when he feels it!

I hadn't noticed feeling any brick wall or any brick wall, just a
discussion about these historical characters.

I think somebody once said that's there's 'bunk, damned bunk and
History.

-- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
Thus ends my discussion> on Thomas More because I noticed I took this
thing way off topic
>
> vQueen Victoriav


I suppose it's valid to discuss where the writers about Richard were
coming from. I think we can only judge people by their actions or
lack of them.

At least we haven't moved the topic from a wars of the roses theme to
the merits & demerits of the late George Harrison, which I experienced
once.

Finito

At 05:32 PM 1/2/03 -0000, Wiillison2001 wrote:
>--- In , "P.T.Bale"
><paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>> willison2001 <willison2001@y...>02/01/2003
>> 16:04willison2001@y...
>>
>
>> not on the side as his bastards were from before he was married.
>
>But Richard was fond of criticising others for 'licentious' behaviour
>& the production of bastards: Edward IV, Hastings, Dorset! He was
>good at noting small faults in others, but not the large ones in
>himself.

It seems that in the 15c there was a fair distinction between premarital
sex and adultery.

>> Richard> > in a letter was also against Shore marrying Thomas
>Lynam.> which if you read it shows Richard as having a wonderful, if
>dark,sense of> humour
>
>I must've missed his 'wonderful if dark sense of humour.' It sounded
>to me as though Richard thought the solicitor simply should not marry
>Jane.

I think it's implied in "marvelous blinded" or whatever phrase Richard
used. He may have thought it imprudent but certainly didn't stand in his
solicitor's way, and I don't believe Lynom suffered professionally for it
in Richard's reign, either.


>Well, if you don't beive a word that More wrote that's up to you.
>Maybe he was a complete fantasist.
>

He certainly wasn't above shading the truth when it suited him. There's
been some discussion of Marius' biography of Sir Thomas More on this list.
A reading of the chapter *after* the one on History of Richard III is most
instructive. It shows More participating in a cover-up (making a murder
look like a suicide) by, among other things, making fun of witnesses in a
manner quite reminiscent of how he wrote about Elizabeth Lucy and the
precontract. As any number of television lawyers might say, "Goes to the
credibility of the witness, Your Honor."

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Yeah Thomas More groupie describes me basically LOL. Curse that day I first
decided to watch A Man for All Seasons!

vQueen Victoriav

[email protected]/01/2003 22:23hockeygirl1016@...

> Curse that day I first
> decided to watch A Man for All Seasons!
well yes, as I wonder what that has to do with Thomas More??,g>
Paul

I finally got to the library. To my surprise I found
that at the library only, most of the EHR and other
articles on Richard III are available in Electronic
format. I downloaded them, and uploaded them to my
Yahoo briefcase.

I can give anyone with a yahoo ID access to the folder
they are in. If you have a yahoo ID, or get one (any
yahoo service), and send it to me, I will give you
access to the folder.

This includes the EHR articles, the Canadian Journal
of History article on the Merchant's guild and
problems with dating, and the Journal of the Society
of Archivists article on the death of Clarence. I got
the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research
articles, but only in hard copy.

Yours,
Dora

Yours,
Dora Smith

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

After I saw A Man for All Seasons, it snowballed from there. Thus also
explains my habit of confusing reality with movies as I'm always like "Yeah,
but in A Man for All Seasons...."

vQueen Victoriav

In The Religious Life of Richard III, Jonathan Hughes,
who argues that Richard was a megalomaniac, states
that he wore his crown into the battle at Bosworth
Field. He cites Hammond and Sutton, The Road to
Bosworth, and The Ballad of Bosworth Field, as his
sources on that. If it were true it would mean that
Richard was truly unglued, which Hughes pretty much
thinks he was. That would be the first piece of
evidence I've seen that supports that notion, though.
Manic-depressive? Quite possibly. That he seriously
lived with a vision of himself as the sun in splendor
is proven, and the man was a serious religious mystic.
Unglued? No evidence of that yet - though Hughes
does argue quite convincingly that Richard was in some
ways far gone over the edge; for instance, whether he
thought he was God's chosen or not, he seriously
believed he was obliged to purge England of sexual
sin.

I question if it is even likely. Richard is supposed
to have worn full armor into battle, he customarily
took an active part in his battles and as far as I
know customarily wore full armor, and it seems
unlikely he fought as he is reputed to have done at
Bosworth without full armor on. Somewhere there is a
photo of the armor he would have worn. It is hard to
imagine a crown staying on that helmet for half a
second of placid riding!

Maybe tehre's a way he could have held it on his head?
But tell me if a king wearing a crown into battle
wasn't rather unusual - atleast in the sense of a
full, ceremonial crown!

I checked the two sources cited in the library this
afternoon. Hammond's The Road to Bosworth is
basically a collection of contemporary accounts. They
took the account of the battle of Bosworth from Rous
or Rouss or however you spell him, and they leave out
crucial pieces of the story that would have included
Richard wearing his crown into battle if that were
alleged to have happened.

Yet when I researched on the web the notion that
Richard's crown rolled under a Hawhtorn bush when he
was killed, wehre it was found and placed on Henry
Tudor's head, I learned that it is such commonplace
belief it is widely cited as part of the basic story.
I found it attributed only to "legend" or tradition".
I did learn that it was included in Shakespeare's
play.

What is the source of the notion that Richard was
wearing his crown in battle?

Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
It seems that in the 15c there was a fair distinction between
premarital> sex and adultery.

I partly come from a Catholic background and I can assure you that
there may be a distinction between adultery and premarital sex
leadingto an out of wedlock child, but BOTH are equally frowned upon.
Marriage is & was seen as a legal contract and a vow to God. To
ignore God by having a bastard child most certainly would not have
been de rigeur. Richard, like his 2 brothers: Edward & George was
fond of bending the rules to suit himself. Not bothering with
marriage vows, not bothering with a trial for Hastings (even
treacherous Clarence got one of those,) not having an open enquiry
over whether the 2 princes were in fact bastards...
>
> >I must've missed his 'wonderful if dark sense of humour.' It
sounded> >to me as though Richard thought the solicitor simply should
not marry >Jane.
>
> I think it's implied in "marvelous blinded" or whatever phrase
Richard used. He may have thought it imprudent but certainly didn't
stand in his> solicitor's way, and I don't believe Lynom suffered
professionally for it in Richard's reign, either.

I have read this letter. My interpretation is that Richard was
astonished that anyone would want to marry a prostitute like Jane,
but I think he was making a bland, serious point, not a 'dark,'
'humorous' or 'wonderful' point here. Marrying a prostitute is
obviously courting problems if you hope for fidelity for your own
sakes and the sakes of, hopefully, any children. Richard didn't make
his own premarital mistresses do penance I notice!
>
Well, I agree with Laura about More playing with the truth. He
seems to have had a comic view of life; he didn't take it too
seriously. He even joked when facing decapitation. 'Help me up.
I'll move for myself on the way down!' I think he may've seen this
life as a mere shadow of the next life!

I agree with the Ricardian view that Richard's character was grossly
distorted by More to Shakespeare, but I'm equally irritated by the
view that he was somehow head & shoulders above his 2 unscrupulous
brothers: Edward & Clarence. Richard may've pretended that he was
morally superior to them, but his behaviour indicates to me that he
was a 'chip off the old block.'

On p 79 of his book, in "The Road to the
Throne", Ross argues that: "Neither authority can be
regarded as wholly impartial, especially here the
Croyland Chronicler. If [the Croyland Chronicler]
were Bishop Russell, we have good contemporary
evidence that he was somewhat reluctant to accept
office from Duke Richard, and that, therefore, he felt
himself especially deceived when Richard went on to
cliam the throne for himnself and, in Croyland's view,
to murder his nephew. "

From note 51 on the source of this; "Russell's unease
about taking the chancellorship is mentioned in Simon
Stallworth's letter of 21 June 1483 (Stonor Letters,
II, 161.) The fact that he was dismissed from his
office on 29 July 1748 suggests that there was no
great confidence between the king and his servant. The
general point that contempararies, as well as Tudor
historians, regarded Richard as ruthless and
calculating is well made by Hanham, Richard III and
his Early Historians, 126, 191-2."

Here is the complete text of the Stonor Letters, which
I copied in the local university library this
afternoon.

I have not even tried to proofread the spelling. (!)
There are parts I cannot even translate into English!
There were even letters of teh alphabet that do not
exist in modern English!

I cannot see where it indicates how Russell, who was
Lord Chancellor and whose servant is the author of
these letters, feels about taking office. One does
get the idea that Russell's servant is not happy at
all about Richard being on the throne. Supporting
such an idea is the interpretation by the authors of
several of the books I have been reading that the
members of the king's council were mostly civil
servants and clerics who mostly just wanted the
preservation of peace.




Stonor Letters and Papers Vol II pp 159-61.

330. Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor

9 June 1483.

Printed in Exerptia Historica p. 16. From A. C.,
xlvi, 206 (I didn't know the Stonor Letters collection
wasn't the original source and so didn't get these
references.)

Master Stoner, after dew recommendacons, I recommend
me to youe. As for tydyngs seyns I wrote to yove we
her noun newe. Ye Quene kepys stylle Westm., my lord
of Yorke (zorke?), my lord of Salysbury with othyr mo
wyche wyll nott departe as zytt. Wher so evyr kanne
be founde any godyse of my lorde Markues it is tayne.
Ye Priore of Westm. wasse and zytt is in a gret
trobyll for certeyne godys delyverd to hyme by my lord
Markques. My lord Protector, my lord of Bukyngham
with all othyr lordys, as well temporale as
spirituale, were at Westm. in ye councel chambre from
x to ij, butt yer (ber?) wass none yat (bat?) spake
with ye (be? pe?) Qwene. Per (yer, ber) is gret
besyness ageyns ye (be, pe) coronacion, wyche schalbe
yis (this? special character for th?) day fortnyght
as we say. When I trust the wylbe at London, and then
schall the knove all the world. The Kyng is at the
towre. My lady of Glocestre come to London on
thorsday last. Also my lord commendys hyme to yove,
and gave me in commaundement to wryte to you, and
prayes you to be god Master to Edward Johnson of
Thame. He wass with my lord, and sued to be made a
denyson for fer of the payment of his subsedy : and my
lord send to Jeves the clerke of the corone and sawe
the commisione and schewyde to hyme that he schold pay
butt vj s. viij d. fo rhymeself : and so were he
better to do then to be made denyson, wyche wold coste
hym the thyrd parte of his goods. And as for suche as
have trobyld with in the lordchype of Thame my lord
wylbe advysed by you at your commyng for the
reformacion, yf ye take note or ye come : for he
thynkes but thei schalbe punyshed in examplee of
othyr. And Jhesu preserve yove. In haste from London
by the handys of your servande, the ix day of June.
Simon Stallworthe

To the rhyt honarabille Sir William Stoner, knyghte.


331. Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor

21 June, 1483

Printed in Excertpa Histirica, pp 16, 17. The greater
part of the letter, down to "menne of my lord," is not
in Stallworth's writing. Sir Clements Markham (Life
of Richard III), has argued that " "As Saturday was
the 21st, Friday last was the 20th. We have here
evidence that Lord Hastings was not beheaded until a
week after his arrest... The story of Morton about the
hurried execution on the 13th, adn the log of wood, is
therefore false. " Dr. Gairdner (Eng. Hist Review,
vi, 454) contested this conclusion. But the fact that
the letter was written in two hands affords an easy
explanation : the first part may well have been
written on Friday, the 20th, and the end added by
Stallworth on Saturday. This also explains the chagne
of Stallworth's opinion as to the liklihood of the
early release of teh bishops. Compare, however, the
dating of No 174 on "All Soules dai last past". From
A. C. xlvi, 207.

Whorschipfull Sir, I commend me to you, and for
tydynges I hold you happy that ye are oute of the
prese, for with huse is myche trobull, and every manne
dowtes other. As on Fryday last was the lord
Chamberleyn hedded sone apone noon. On Monday last
was at Westm. gret plenty of harnest men : ther was
the dylyveraunce of the Dewke of Yorke to my lord
Cardenale, my lord Chauncelor, and other many lordes
Temporale : and with hym mette my lord of Bukyngham in
the myddes of the hall of Westm. : my lord protectour
recevynge hyme at the Starre Chamber Dore with many
lovynge wordys : and so departed with my lord
Cardenale to the toure, where he is, blessid be
Jhesus, mery. The lord Liele is come to my lord
protectour, and awates upon hyme. Yt is thought there
schalbe xx thousand of my lord protectour andmy lord
of Bukyngham men in London this weeke : to what intent
I knowe not but to kepe the peas. My lord haith myche
besynes adn more then he is content with all, yf any
other ways wold be tayn. The lord Arsbyscchop of
Yorke, the Byshop of Ely ar yit in the toure with
Master Olyver Kynge. [I suppose they schall come oute
neverthelesse]. (1) Ther are men in ther placese for
sure kepynge. And I suppose that ther shall be sente
menne of my lord protectour to theis lordys places in
the countre. They are not lyke to come oute off ward
zytt. (yet?) As for Foster he is in hold and meue
for hys lyffe. Mastres Chore (2) is in prisone : what
schall happyne hyr I knowe nott. I pray you pardone
me of mor wrytyng, I ame so seke that I may not wel
holde my penne. And Jhesu preserve you. From London
the xxj day of June by the handys of your servand.
Simon Stallworthe
All the lord Chamberleyne mene be come my lordys of
Bokynghame menne.

To the right worschipfull Ser Willm, Stoner, knyht.

(1) A line has been drawn through these words in the
original.
(2) Shore.




Dora




__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> After I saw A Man for All Seasons, it snowballed from there. Thus
also > explains my habit of confusing reality with movies as I'm
always like "Yeah,> but in A Man for All Seasons...."
>
> vQueen Victoriav

Confusing fact & fiction is a problem in History generally. We all
have, for instance, a historical view of Adolf Hitler, but his view
would've been different, just as Richard III's history of events
would've been different from that of Tudor.

I enjoyed the Lawrence Olivier version of Richard III & Paul Schofield
in 'A Man for All Seasons,' but accept them as largely fantasy with
more than a grain of truth in them.

Fact is better than fantasy, but is also fragmentary, blown away by
the winds of Time.

In The Religious Life of Richard III, Jonathan Hughes
reviews the evidence that Richard DID active oppose
the execution of Clarence by their brother Edward IV.
Hughes is a good devil's advocate for Richard,
because he pretty much thinks Richard did the most
monstrous things he has been accused of. However, he
methodically and in a balanced way presents all of the
evidence available to him, and it is more than I have
seen from Ross and Kendall.

Richard literally went into mourning over it, and
started wearing black, and from that time he became
somewhat distant from Edward. He was not often seen
at court any more. He gave every appearance of
thinking that this was a final consequence of his
brother's moral degeneration, as otherwise evidenced
by his poor sexual morals.

This while presenting the source information with
actual quotations for Ross's statement that Richard
and Clarence argued for the Neville women and their
property like accomplished lawyers and impressed
everyone who heard them with their legal skill.

Richard did benefit from Clarence's death, as did a
number of other people - for a time until the wind
shifted. Kay Penman argues convincingly that the
circle of people immediately around Edward saw him as
the original Indian giver. They benefitted for a time
here, and they lost for a time there. Edward treated
everyone like this as the mood or whatever struck him.
People treated and thought of Edward pretty much the
way one deals with a moody and capricious boss, or the
way we tenants dealt with my last landlord, who
everyone including his wife agreed had bipolar
disorder. One really doesn't know what he is going
to do next, one takes each thing as it comes, one
doesn't count on anything, and one does one's best to
survive in the company. I'm Paul's favorite, huh?
Yeah? Everyone joins in the chorus; Ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha.

Most of the authors of the books I have been reading
think this is a crucial part of how Edward set England
up for civil war after his death.

Everyone, Richard included, largely blamed the
Woodvilles for all of this.

Dora


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:

Clarence was married to the sister of Richard's wife. Have you
thought that she may've pressured Richard into taking a sympathetic
line with Clarence against Edward and, then, there was Hasting's
invitation to do something about Dorset's hasty desire to remove
Richard from the top dog position.

Dora Smith wrote:

[I removed all the remarks based on Jonathan Hughes and would suggest that
you read Sutton & Visser-Fuchs' book on Richard III's hours, their book on
Richard's books, and Livia Visser-Fuchs' review of Hughes' contribution to
_Richard III and the North_ in the March 1997 issue of _The Ricardian_. Her
review is very much a critique of the arguments Hughes will later develop
in his book. I personally am much closer to Visser-Fuchs' views than
Hughes's. In other words, I would suggest that you not take the book
uncritically.]



>What is the source of the notion that Richard was
>wearing his crown in battle?
>
Diego de Valera and our friends the Tudors. Michael Bennett gathered
together all the major sources on the Battle of Bosworth in an appendix to
his book of the same name, and has kindly allowed us to reprint them in our
Bosworth section, http://www.r3.org/bosworth/

Crowland says he wore his crown the day before while leaving Leicester.

I never thought much about Richard wearing some sort of crown over his
helmet, since it seems to me a kingly sort of thing to do -- but both
Jonathan Hughes and Michael K. Jones make much of it.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

-rom: Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>
Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 3:11 am
Subject: Complete text of Stonor letters and
Russell's relations with Richard III


On p 79 of his book, in "The Road to
the
Throne", Ross argues that: "Neither
authority can be
regarded as wholly impartial,
especially here the
Croyland Chronicler. If [the Croyland
Chronicler]
were Bishop Russell, we have good
contemporary
evidence that he was somewhat
reluctant to accept
office from Duke Richard, and that,
therefore, he felt
himself especially deceived when
Richard went on to
cliam the throne for himnself and, in
Croyland's view,
to murder his nephew. "

I should think a lot of people were shocked over Richard taking the
throne. They would never have guessed that he had a prior claim over
Edward's & Clarence's children!!!

Richard in terms of merit was probably the best man for the job, but
the oldest male heir always got the job, even if mad like Henry VI,
despotic like Richard II or weak and openly gay like Edward II, which
obviously didn't go down too well with his heterosexual Queen & macho
nobles.

Therein lies the problem with hereditary monarchs. The UK is facing
the same problem if Charles III succeeds, a man who believes that
talking to plants helps their growth, whose handling of his unstable
wife wasn't the best PR exercise in history & who probably couldn't
managea public toilet efficiently, judging by the Royal gifts scandal
of late.

At 03:38 AM 1/3/03 -0000, you wrote:

>
>Clarence was married to the sister of Richard's wife. Have you
>thought that she may've pressured Richard into taking a sympathetic
>line with Clarence against Edward and, then, there was Hasting's
>invitation to do something about Dorset's hasty desire to remove
>Richard from the top dog position.
>

What on earth are you talking about? Isobel Neville had zero leverage after
her father's death. Or are you suggesting that Richard was so
tender-hearted that he would respond to a woman's pleas even if the woman
had no bargaining position to speak of? Somehow I don't think so.

If you're talking about when Edward had Clarence attainted, she had less
than zero influence, being dead at the time.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 03:38 AM 1/3/03 -0000, you wrote:

> What on earth are you talking about? Isobel Neville had zero
leverage after> her father's death. Or are you suggesting that Richard
was so> tender-hearted that he would respond to a woman's pleas even
if the woman> had no bargaining position to speak of? Somehow I don't
think so.
>
I was talking about (on earth) the emotional & political influence
which Richard's wife had over him. Gleaned as sister to Isobel
(Clarence's wife) & daughter to Warwick she may've reinforced a view
which was not dissimilar to that of Clarence & Warwick, which was
anti-Edward & the Woodvilles. This became evident when Edward died.

You seem to downplay the influence of women in the 15th century, but
wives, then as now, can be formidable, e.g. Margaret of Anjou &, I
dare say, Elizabeth Woodville.

At 04:18 AM 1/3/03 -0000, you wrote:
>--- In , Laura Blanchard
><lblanchard@r...> wrote:
>> At 03:38 AM 1/3/03 -0000, you wrote:
>

>
>You seem to downplay the influence of women in the 15th century, but
>wives, then as now, can be formidable, e.g. Margaret of Anjou &, I
>dare say, Elizabeth Woodville.
>

And there's evidence to indicate the influence all of those had. There
isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that either Isobel or Anne ever said
boo to a goose.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Dora Smith wrote:
>
> I checked the two sources cited in the library this
> afternoon. Hammond's The Road to Bosworth is
> basically a collection of contemporary accounts. They
> took the account of the battle of Bosworth from Rous
> or Rouss or however you spell him, and they leave out
> crucial pieces of the story that would have included
> Richard wearing his crown into battle if that were
> alleged to have happened.

Rous also claimed Richard was born with hair, teeth after 2 YEARS in
his mother's womb.

Carol

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> willison2001 <willison2001@y...>01/01/2003
> 4:44willison2001@y...
>
> > kindly Mistress Shore was persecuted by Richard, despite the
> > fact that Richard had used women out of wedlock himself
> "Kindly"? she was the court bike during the reign of Edward IV,
being passed
> to Hastings on the king's death, in spite of Dorset's interest. As
for
> Richard's "persecution", he made her walk through London in a shift
as a
> penitent/sinner, then allowed her to marry one of his retainers.
She lived
> happily ever after.
> Where do you get your info from?
> Paul

He/she gets his/her information from just about everywhere. More
specifically called her kindly. She sure was compared to Richard III
on his Puritan high horse, and I think this is More's point! In his
book on Richard III. Book I'm currently reading, Jonathan Hughes'
The Religious Life of Richard III, says even more plainly than
everyone else I've read (yes, everyone, even Richard's fondest
admirers), that Richard's targeting Mistress Shore and partially
scapegoating her for what he believed to be the sexual amorality at
the heart of Edward's downfall, as he saw it, backfired big time.
All of London had sympathy for her! The way Hughes tells it, people
who wouldn't have had sympathy for her were out of patience at
Richard's puritanism. He and his supporters were saying the most
outrageous things about sexual amorality and his brother's life, and
he genuinely believed that it was his job to fix the sexual mores of
England. Penman argues that England pretty much preferred the more
liberal values of Edward's court.

Shore is also widely cited as having been kindly in specific ways.
Common English morality of the time thought she was kindly to give
her favors as freely as she did! For real. But she gave the money
and goods Edward gave her freely to people who needed it, adn she
often intervened with Edward on peoples' behalf. When Richard
punished her, people remembered this, and it became kind of symbolic
of what I think people really did think of Richard.

Dora

--- In , "willison2001 <married.
>
> But Richard was fond of criticising others for 'licentious'
behaviour
> & the production of bastards: Edward IV, Hastings, Dorset! He was
> good at noting small faults in others, but not the large ones in
> himself.
>
> > Richard> > in a letter was also against Shore marrying Thomas
> Lynam.> which if you read it shows Richard as having a wonderful,
if
> dark,sense of> humour
>
> I must've missed his 'wonderful if dark sense of humour.' It
sounded
> to me as though Richard thought the solicitor simply should not
marry
>


Richard in one of his better moments. The way I've got it, from
several sources, all citing one or more letters Richard wrote on this
episode, Richard thought it was a bad but funny idea and was not
particularly inclined to browbeat the courtier who wanted to marry
Mistress Shore into Puritan line. He wrote, good humoredly, send
him to the bishop to try to talk him out of it, but if that doesn't
work, I guess I'll have to consent to it.

This episode is one of the pieces of evidence cited by people who,
like Penman, specifically disagree with Jonathan Hughes, adn don't
think that Richard was inclined to run other peoples' lives. I'll
look at it again. I'm not quite through the book at any rate.

Dora

Dora

I'll look for the book. it might be in the university library.

I don't think I need the article - I can just imagine what the
Richard III Society had to say about Hughes' book!

I haven't yet seen any actual arguments that Richard was insane, nor
that he was megalomaniacal and had a persecution complex, let alone
that this is why he murdered the princes, I'm partway through the
next to the last chapter. Except the bit about Richard wearing his
crown into battle, that is. If Hughes has them, he'd better hurry
up and present them!

I am going to take another look at the articles about Richard's
Puritanical mission; others admit he had a personal Puritan streak,
and previously I've seen the darndest arguments advanced by both
Richard and his supporters, but always in connection with the
Woodvilles.

I do believe he was an over the edge mystic surrounded by a group of
rather sick people; I already thought something of the sort, and
Hughes has a wealth of information that elaborates on the point in
great detail.

I still think it is one of the group of rather sick people who killed
the princes, and Richard lacked the stuff to respond appropriately.

Hughes really depicts an entire Yorkist royal family that really
needed a Henry Tudor to stabilize the monarchy! Already the picture
I was very much getting. None of those people could have held power
for very long, let alone established a strong government and kept the
peace.

Dora



--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> Dora Smith wrote:
>
> [I removed all the remarks based on Jonathan Hughes and would
suggest that
> you read Sutton & Visser-Fuchs' book on Richard III's hours, their
book on
> Richard's books, and Livia Visser-Fuchs' review of Hughes'
contribution to
> _Richard III and the North_ in the March 1997 issue of _The
Ricardian_. Her
> review is very much a critique of the arguments Hughes will later
develop
> in his book. I personally am much closer to Visser-Fuchs' views than
> Hughes's. In other words, I would suggest that you not take the book
> uncritically.]
>
>
>
> >What is the source of the notion that Richard was
> >wearing his crown in battle?
> >
> Diego de Valera and our friends the Tudors. Michael Bennett gathered
> together all the major sources on the Battle of Bosworth in an
appendix to
> his book of the same name, and has kindly allowed us to reprint
them in our
> Bosworth section, http://www.r3.org/bosworth/
>
> Crowland says he wore his crown the day before while leaving
Leicester.
>
> I never thought much about Richard wearing some sort of crown over
his
> helmet, since it seems to me a kingly sort of thing to do -- but
both
> Jonathan Hughes and Michael K. Jones make much of it.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

!!!
>
> Richard in terms of merit was probably the best man for the job,
but
> the oldest male heir always got the job, even if mad like Henry VI,
> despotic like Richard II or weak and openly gay like Edward II,
which
> obviously didn't go down too well with his heterosexual Queen &
macho
> nobles.


You know, I really had that idea too, at first.

>
> Therein lies the problem with hereditary monarchs. The UK is
facing
> the same problem if Charles III succeeds,
who probably couldn't
> managea public toilet efficiently, judging by the Royal gifts
scandal
> of late.


HUH?!!!! Living in Austin, I've really lost track of goings on with
the British royal family. In Buffalo we got British newspapers adn
such, and Royalty Magazine, and all of that.

Please e-mail me privately and tell me what I've missed?!

Dora

--- In , Carol Rondou
<lilith@e...> wrote:
> Dora Smith wrote:
> >
> > I checked the two sources cited in the library this
> > afternoon. Hammond's The Road to Bosworth is
> > basically a collection of contemporary accounts. They
> > took the account of the battle of Bosworth from Rous
> > or Rouss or however you spell him, and they leave out
> > crucial pieces of the story that would have included
> > Richard wearing his crown into battle if that were
> > alleged to have happened.
>
> Rous also claimed Richard was born with hair, teeth after 2 YEARS in
> his mother's womb.
>
> Carol


Born with hair and teeth?! Fascinating!

Seriously, DID Rous claim Richard wore his crown into battle at
Bosworth field?

I forgot to finish that part of my query. The parts of Rous's
account that HAmmond includes in The Road to Bosworth don't mention
Richard wearing a crown into battle. A section that might have
included it is left out of the middle of the battle account.

I did find a discussion online, possibly R3.org web site, not sure,
that cites Hammond's book, second edition, and includes material that
I didn't see - always possible I saw the wrong edition. However,
the university library has only that one edition.

If anyone has the 2nd edition, does it include anything about Richard
wearing his crown into battle?

Dora

--- In , Carol Rondou
<lilith@e...> wrote:
> Dora Smith wrote:
> >
> > I checked the two sources cited in the library this
> > afternoon. Hammond's The Road to Bosworth is
> > basically a collection of contemporary accounts. They
> > took the account of the battle of Bosworth from Rous
> > or Rouss or however you spell him, and they leave out
> > crucial pieces of the story that would have included
> > Richard wearing his crown into battle if that were
> > alleged to have happened.
>
> Rous also claimed Richard was born with hair, teeth after 2 YEARS in
> his mother's womb.
>
> Carol

Two years?!! Hughes would claim that idea came from Richard
himself! Definate Messianic complex. Identified with David, John
the Baptist, everybody. (LOL)

Dora

>--- In , Laura Blanchard
> ><lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> >> At 03:38 AM 1/3/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >You seem to downplay the influence of women in the 15th century,
but >wives, then as now, can be formidable, e.g. Margaret of Anjou &,
I dare say, Elizabeth Woodville.
> >
>
> And there's evidence to indicate the influence all of those had.
There> isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that either Isobel or Anne
ever said> boo to a goose.
>

A lot of written evidence is destroyed, but it seems reasonable to
deduce that the 2 daughters of the formidable Warwick the Kingmaker
would have something to say, as women always do in marriage and it's
strange that Richard took the Warwick/Clarence line of virulent
opposition to Edward IV's Woodville marriage. Of Course it's possible
that a word never escaped the lips of Anne Neville on the subject, but
is that really typical of women?

It's a shame that not more has survived about Anne.

At 05:09 AM 1/3/03 -0000, you wrote:
>I'll look for the book. it might be in the university library.
>
>I don't think I need the article - I can just imagine what the
>Richard III Society had to say about Hughes' book!
>

I would disagree with you there. Livia Visser-Fuchs makes a number of
important points about the way Hughes has handled his evidence. I had come
to similar conclusions upon reading Hughes' original essay.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

>
> A lot of written evidence is destroyed, but it seems reasonable to
> deduce that the 2 daughters of the formidable Warwick the Kingmaker
> would have something to say, as women always do in marriage and it's
> strange that Richard took the Warwick/Clarence line of virulent
> opposition to Edward IV's Woodville marriage.

Actually Richard's relationship with Elizabeth Wydeville was on the whole
good until 1483. It's likely that she supported his wish to marry Anne
Neville against Clarence's opposition to the match, Richard was steward for
some of her lands during the 1470's, Richard was probably too young to have
voiced any opinion on his brother's marriage when it actually took place, he
knighted Edward Wydeville during the Scots campaign and was on relatively
good terms with Anthony 2nd Earl Rivers.

Clarence's relations with the Queen were only destroyed by his support for
Warwick which resulted in the death of her father and brother John Wydeville
and the false witchcraft accusations made by Warwick against her mother.

Warwick's own opposition to the match was probably based on two things -
firstly his own embarrassment over negotiations with France however while a
French match might have been politic it would have been deeply unpopular
domestically and Edward's own personal view was more likely to favour a
Burgundian alliance at the time anyway. Secondly the Queen's relations
effectively did corner the marriage market (though they weren't the only
parvenue's at Edward's court - Hastings, and Pembroke were both from fairly
lowly origins considering the influence they gained in the first reign),
which reduced opportunities for his own daughters. However his prime
opposition was probably the marriage of Pembroke's heir to the Queen's
sister (they gained a Lordship he'd wanted), the marriage of Katherine
Wydeville to Buckingham who would have been a prime candidate for one of the
Neville girls given his standing, and possibly the marriage of John
Wydeville to Catherine Dowager Duchess of Norfolk (although she may have
been protecting herself from her own greedy relations which included her
Mowbray heirs and her Neville relations - effectively her second husband had
been attainted and the estates she held from him would have probably gone
not to his heirs but to hers though it was probable that the King may have
intended them to go to John Wydeville after her death.)

It's also useful to remember that Warwick's anger was a while in coming and
effectively he found his influence waning not as the King relied on his new
in law's but as he revealed that he had no intention of relying on anyone
but himself. Warwick and his relations remained the largest beneficiaries
in terms of Royal Patronage under Edward until the readeption and the
Wydeville gains were miniscule in comparison.

The power exercised by medieval women was dependant on two things their
wealth and the amount of independance they had from their Husband or Father.
You can't compare the power exercised by a Queen Consort such as Margaret of
Anjou with that of a mere aristocrat's spouse...Queen's were vast landowners
and that gave them considerable wealth and power if they administered their
holdings well (as Elizabeth Wydeville did for example) however their ability
to exercise their rights was entirely dependent on their husbands
willingness to allow them to go their own way. The only medieval women who
exercised considerable influence tended to be wealthy widows who had
independant wealth and weren't dependant on a male relative but even they
had to tread a careful path not to upset greedy relations who may have the
King's ear. Isabel and Anne Neville were entirely reliant on their husbands
after their father's death - they had no independant wealth (and no
arrangements appear to have been made for their dowers). While they may
have brought the good will of their family name to the new landowners
(George and Richard) that's all they brought (along with dubious title to a
variety of estates that were entailed to the Neville heirs male that neither
girl would have inherited anyway).

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> >
Actually Richard's relationship with Elizabeth Wydeville was on the
whole> good until 1483.

Thanks for your long reply. You've obviously studied this period in
some depth or maybe it's part of your job.

I do wonder if Richard's attitude to Elizabeth Woodville pre-dated the
confrontation engendered by the death of Edward IV? Did Richard agree
with Warwick's/Clarence's hostility to the Edward IV/Elizabeth
Woodville marriage, but kept his feelings secret? On the surface, as
you say, he seemed to be on good terms with Elizabeth, but with Edward
out of the way, as you know, all Hell broke loose. Ann Neville, if
she had a close personal relationship with Richard, may've shaped his
private opinion to accord with that of her dead Father (Warwick); both
appeared to be equally upset - on the verge of insanity - when their
son died & may've shared a deeper relationship than is known. Richard
may've been too canny to attack Edward IV directly & publically, like
Clarence (both Clarence & Warwick of course paid the ultimate price
for opposition to Edward,) as he may've seen Edward as too formidable,
but privately he may've had his doubts about the marriage.

About Richard and Anne's relationship...(sorry I can't reply exactly my
computer can't highlight!) I always thought they had a close bond. Forget
what Shakespeare tried to convey to us, I feel they were very close so maybe,
yeah, she did have an influence on his opinions. Not that she forced them
down his throat but maybe she had the power to turn his mind around.

vQueen Victoriav

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> About Richard and Anne's relationship...(sorry I can't reply exactly
my
> computer can't highlight!) I always thought they had a close bond.
Forget
> what Shakespeare tried to convey to us, I feel they were very close
so maybe,
> yeah, she did have an influence on his opinions. Not that she forced
them
> down his throat but maybe she had the power to turn his mind around.
>
> vQueen Victoriav

Hmmm...I'm sure you're right. Forget the technical, legal position,
conventionally women were treated with considerable respect in the
Middle Ages. The veneration of Our Lady almost superseded that for
Christ. Women where they've bonded well with their partner and Anne &
Richard had a child & he doesn't appear to have resorted to mistresses
while married to her, usually have their 'say' about matters. Not
only had Edward been responsible for the death of her Father, but he'd
also executed her sister's husband: Clarence and she, a Neville,
may've shared her Father's & brother-in-law's distaste for the
relatively parvenu Elizabeth. This sounds snobbish, but the
aristocracy could be that way and this is reflected in Richard's
letter to the North: referring to the 'Queen & her blood affinity.'

Just read and think too much nothing to do with work <g>

>
> I do wonder if Richard's attitude to Elizabeth Woodville pre-dated the
> confrontation engendered by the death of Edward IV? Did Richard agree
> with Warwick's/Clarence's hostility to the Edward IV/Elizabeth
> Woodville marriage, but kept his feelings secret? On the surface, as
> you say, he seemed to be on good terms with Elizabeth, but with Edward
> out of the way, as you know, all Hell broke loose.

That is my point - in 1483 whatever Edward may have intended Richard saw an
opportunity and took it aggresively. It suddenly became very convenient to
attack the Wydeville's - times have changed very little the most useful way
to discredit an opponent in politics was then as it is now is to condemn
their sexual morality whatever the facts. Therefore a reading of Titulus
Regius promptly repeats and gives a loose form of legality to those attacks.
Warwick certainly used much the same sort of attack in 69 and 70. The
difference was that in 1469/70 Warwick lost. In 1483 the Wydeville's were
not powerful enough to fight off that kind of smear campaign.

Ann Neville, if
> she had a close personal relationship with Richard, may've shaped his
> private opinion to accord with that of her dead Father (Warwick); both
> appeared to be equally upset - on the verge of insanity - when their
> son died & may've shared a deeper relationship than is known.

There is too little surviving evidence of their relationship to form any
kind of opinion....with regard their son's death the same can be said of
Elizabeth of York and Henry VII on Arthur's death but there are plenty of
people who see that as a blip in a difficult marriage. Like Richard Henry
appears to have also been a faithful husband.

As to shaping his opinion - well again we can't know. What we do know is
that even on his accession Richard made no provision to dower his wife any
more than he had done when Edward had pushed Parliament into confirming
George and Richard's rights to their living mother in law's property. Not
to dower her effectively meant she was deprived of any form of patronage in
her own right at all. There are numerous schools of thought on the
undowered Anne Neville but it is interesting that Richard had the assets to
dower her appropriately if he wished - Elizabeth Wydeville's dower was lying
dormant given that Richard had confiscated her holdings (Edward had been
generous her income would have been somewhere around the 4 to 5 thousand
mark and the bulk of it was in lands administered by her council), he also
had the Duchy of York estates (though those did include his mother Cecily's
dower) aswell as the Duchy of Lancaster holdings and his own holdings which
obviously merged with the crown on his accession.

The fact he appears to have made no provision can point to numerous
thoughts - that Anne Neville wasn't a good manager, that he didn't trust
her, that as Duke of Gloucester he didn't want to appear beholden to his
wife, it may even be said that he wasn't on the throne long enough to make
the arrangements (though it is useful to remember that a Queen's dower was
usually set at marriage and any delays usually followed in actually
arranging the transfer of assets - but 18 months is usually about the time
span from initial to final grants).

Whatever you might fell I suspect that while their marriage was probably
good Richard was very much his own man. I also suspect that the two sisters
Isabel and Anne may also have had a difficult and testy relationship....I
suspect Anne was not particularly in sympathy with George and Isabel at all.


> may've been too canny to attack Edward IV directly & publically, like
> Clarence (both Clarence & Warwick of course paid the ultimate price
> for opposition to Edward,) as he may've seen Edward as too formidable,
> but privately he may've had his doubts about the marriage.
>
But to dissemble for two decades over his brother's wife particularly from
the age Richard was when Edward married Elizabeth is pretty good going. I
could understand it if Elizabeth had turned out to be a disastrously bad
Queen Consort but the truth was that she was actually rather good at it from
what little survives from the period - she was undoubtedly fertile, modest,
elegant, a good hostess, seems to have shared Edward's view of how a monarch
should look and behave and without doubt shared in his success at restoring
the prestige of the English Crown after the disastrouly shambolic and
unkingly Henry VI, she wasn't extravagent (her household was probably the
best and most economically run in a generation - she appears to have
remained solvent unlike Margaret of Anjou), she turned the usual dignified
blind eye to Edward's wandering libido, and miraculously seems to have
maintained his affection until his death (when their last child Bridget was
just short of three years old). Now she may well also have ruffled a few
feathers over the years, and was probably quite politically influential but
that doesn't necessarily mean she was personally unpopular (and there is
nothing contemporary or prior 1483 that suggests it either and it is
noticeable that Croyland mentions her willingness to compromise at the early
council meetings following Edward's death, it is also useful to point out
that even Warwick didn't attack her personally or directly but aimed his
fire at her father, mother and brothers.)

It just doesn't ring true that Richard concealed some loathing of her
particularly following Clarence's death much of which is only mentioned
after his usurpation in the Spring and Summer of 1483 when most people would
have been trying to explain his actions and like Mancini assume a grudge
where they may well have been none.

At 03:42 AM 1/5/03 -0000, Tim wrote:

>
>It just doesn't ring true that Richard concealed some loathing of her
>particularly following Clarence's death much of which is only mentioned
>after his usurpation in the Spring and Summer of 1483 when most people would
>have been trying to explain his actions and like Mancini assume a grudge
>where they may well have been none.
>

Here's what I don't get about this argument. Mancini is supposed to have
gotten a lot of his information from John Argentine, Edward V's physician
and an Edwardian loyalist. I would expect that in addition to the earful
about what a wonderful young man Edward V was, Mancini would also have
heard an exasperated earful about how well Richard always seemed to get
along with the Woodvilles. I am of course assuming that Argentine would
have been in a position to know, but it seems a reasonable assumption to me.

At least one historian has suggested that in seizing Anthony Woodville et
al. at Stony Stratford Richard was simply keeping his options open, being
fearful of being eased out of what he saw as his rightful protectorate. It
wasn't until later, when Elizabeth Woodville and her adherents took a hard
line (understandably given the circumstances) that Richard's ambitions
really stirred. This historian also added his opinion that "it's more a
story of all sorts of limited people out of their depth" than one of
conscious villainy.

--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

I'll have to post Markham's 1890 take on the work later - it's
several pages long, I'll get timed out if I transcribe it online.

For something written in 1890, it presents the best reasoning I've
seen yet for believing that More never wrote it; that the document
found in his stuff was an unfinished copy of something someone else
wrote.

The article is in my yahoo briefcase, and except for having no
comment on Mancini, whose work hadn't been found in 1890, and
thinking that Hastings was executed on June 20, it is one of the best
discussions I've seen.

It also appears to be the main source of Josephine Tey's novel. I
recognize the arguments.

Dora

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 01:18 PM 1/1/03 EST, you wrote:
> >I haven't gotten to read More's RIchard III yet. It's on the
Society's
> >webpage, right?
>
> Yes, it is, together with Marius' chapter on the work and Jeremy
Potter's
> Ricardian take on the work.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
>
> Clarence was married to the sister of Richard's wife. Have you
> thought that she may've pressured Richard into taking a sympathetic
> line with Clarence against Edward and, then, there was Hasting's
> invitation to do something about Dorset's hasty desire to remove
> Richard from the top dog position.

It would be a surprise if she didn't make such an effort. It seems
unlikely to me it was she who carried the day. But Penman argues
that she had good cause to detest Clarence, and Penman's version of
the "kidnapping" is that Anne slipped away from Clarence's custody
with a maid or someone of the sort, and hid at an inn owned by people
the maid knew, and worked for them until Richard came looking for
her. Clarence had been very abusive toward her, and Penman argued
that she ran on account of something he was planning to do to her.

I don't know what the second part means.

Dora

Yup, when their husbands didn't imprison them, or beat them to a
pulp, women seem to have exerted an unbelievable amount of influence
in feudal society. It is hard to believe some of the scenes Penman
writes of, for instance, King John's daughter, who he had married to
the king of Wales, going to her father in tears and talking him out
of invading Wales. In a feudal society family and personal ties
were often what mattered.

However, while she may or may not ahve tried to influence Richard
about Clarence, I doubt she actually could have overcome the greed
that would have motivated him to want Clarence dead. But the
evidence is that she probably in fact didn't try to sway Richard
because he staunchly opposed Clarence's execution, and was greatly
antagonized by it.

Women have had alot of power in every society; this is the heart of
the Virgin Mary myth and its Mexican counterpart, the Lady of
Guadalupe - who was actually a meek and mild maidenly descendant of
the great mother goddess, who was raped by the head god and gave
birth to the sun god. Like Mary, she had a principal role to care
about the community and intercede with the male gods on behalf of
people. Mary and her Mithran counterpart who gave birth to the son
of the sun god in a cave that was a nobleman's stable, while
shephards stood guard outside, angels sang praises in the sky
overhead, and three eastern magi followed a star to the site of the
god's birth, all of this celebrated as a major Roman feast day on
December 25, were both Indo-Europeanized versions of the Great Mother
Goddess, who was the spirit of women in matriarchal communities.
These myths are incidentally very realistic; Mary faced real danger
from the men in her community for being unable to satisfactorily
explain her pregnancy, and the brotehrs of the Lady of Guadalupe
promptly went out and murdered all the other gods in revenge for the
rape, or something.

Dora


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , Laura Blanchard
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > At 03:38 AM 1/3/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
> > What on earth are you talking about? Isobel Neville had zero
> leverage after> her father's death. Or are you suggesting that
Richard
> was so> tender-hearted that he would respond to a woman's pleas
even
> if the woman> had no bargaining position to speak of? Somehow I
don't
> think so.
> >
> I was talking about (on earth) the emotional & political influence
> which Richard's wife had over him. Gleaned as sister to Isobel
> (Clarence's wife) & daughter to Warwick she may've reinforced a
view
> which was not dissimilar to that of Clarence & Warwick, which was
> anti-Edward & the Woodvilles. This became evident when Edward died.
>
> You seem to downplay the influence of women in the 15th century,
but
> wives, then as now, can be formidable, e.g. Margaret of Anjou &, I
> dare say, Elizabeth Woodville.

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> >--- In , Laura Blanchard
> > ><lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > >> At 03:38 AM 1/3/03 -0000, you wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >You seem to downplay the influence of women in the 15th century,
> but >wives, then as now, can be formidable, e.g. Margaret of Anjou
&,
> I dare say, Elizabeth Woodville.
> > >
> >
> > And there's evidence to indicate the influence all of those had.
> There> isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that either Isobel or
Anne
> ever said> boo to a goose.
> >


I give it limited credibility, but Ross argues that Anne actually did
alot of acting out of self interest and was in fact allied with
Richard in his battle with Clarence over the division of the land and
whatever else that Anne and her sister had inherited. I don't
remember all of the details, except that he both thinks she was
supposedly was kidnapped, which isn't Penman's take on it at all, and
he thinks that she consented to it because, the way Ross reasoned it,
all feudal nobility were selfish, amoral and criminal, Anne was a
noblewoman and "of course" she acted strictly from self interest -
and one particularly juicy detail that I recall Ross offering to
support his point is something about the way Anne handled her mother
ending up confined in a convent.

Dora
>
> A lot of written evidence is destroyed, but it seems reasonable to
> deduce that the 2 daughters of the formidable Warwick the Kingmaker
> would have something to say, as women always do in marriage and
it's
> strange that Richard took the Warwick/Clarence line of virulent
> opposition to Edward IV's Woodville marriage. Of Course it's
possible
> that a word never escaped the lips of Anne Neville on the subject,
but
> is that really typical of women?
>
> It's a shame that not more has survived about Anne.

It's partly a matter of what women we're dealing with. The women of
the Angevin dynasty, for example, were as intense, fiery and strong
willed as their husbands, and despite extreme repression by Normans
of their women, you simply couldn't keep these particular women from,
for instance, leading armies into war, like Henry VI's wife.

Dora


--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > About Richard and Anne's relationship...(sorry I can't reply
exactly
> my
> > computer can't highlight!) I always thought they had a close
bond.
> Forget
> > what Shakespeare tried to convey to us, I feel they were very
close
> so maybe,
> > yeah, she did have an influence on his opinions. Not that she
forced
> them
> > down his throat but maybe she had the power to turn his mind
around.
> >
> > vQueen Victoriav
>
> Hmmm...I'm sure you're right. Forget the technical, legal
position,
> conventionally women were treated with considerable respect in the
> Middle Ages. The veneration of Our Lady almost superseded that for
> Christ. Women where they've bonded well with their partner and
Anne &
> Richard had a child & he doesn't appear to have resorted to
mistresses
> while married to her, usually have their 'say' about matters. Not
> only had Edward been responsible for the death of her Father, but
he'd
> also executed her sister's husband: Clarence and she, a Neville,
> may've shared her Father's & brother-in-law's distaste for the
> relatively parvenu Elizabeth. This sounds snobbish, but the
> aristocracy could be that way and this is reflected in Richard's
> letter to the North: referring to the 'Queen & her blood affinity.'

Having finished reading Jonathan Hughes' book, and learning much,
though not that Richard was a megalomaniac, I find both Mancini and
Argentine characteristic of the fatal decay that infected the Yorkist
court and its followers. Both lived to gather and spread gossip and
innuendo, and to tell a melodramatic tale.

Argentine's words to Mancini come across as something far more
dishonest than propaganda or the tonypandy my Dehaven ancestors who
lived at Valley Forge were guilty of when they outright lied that
they saw Washington's men starving and barefoot in the snow. It has
the ring of a lie about it. "Oh, the poor, abused, sad, prince! He
spent his time in mass, and told his brother who wanted to learn to
dance, better we should learn how to die. He expected to die!"
Healthy 12 year old boy spends his time praying. Uh, huh.

Think about it, Mancini was a foreign diplomat in London, gathering
information to send home; why didn't he have better sources and more
accurate information? Why does he write as if he wasn't even
listening to the 6:00 street cryers (their version of the evening
news)? He should have been able to talk directly to members of
Richard's government, and to view state documents that bore on the
matters he discussed.

Dora

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 03:42 AM 1/5/03 -0000, Tim wrote:
>
> >
> >It just doesn't ring true that Richard concealed some loathing of
her
> >particularly following Clarence's death much of which is only
mentioned
> >after his usurpation in the Spring and Summer of 1483 when most
people would
> >have been trying to explain his actions and like Mancini assume a
grudge
> >where they may well have been none.
> >
>
> Here's what I don't get about this argument. Mancini is supposed to
have
> gotten a lot of his information from John Argentine, Edward V's
physician
> and an Edwardian loyalist. I would expect that in addition to the
earful
> about what a wonderful young man Edward V was, Mancini would also
have
> heard an exasperated earful about how well Richard always seemed to
get
> along with the Woodvilles. I am of course assuming that Argentine
would
> have been in a position to know, but it seems a reasonable
assumption to me.
>
> At least one historian has suggested that in seizing Anthony
Woodville et
> al. at Stony Stratford Richard was simply keeping his options open,
being
> fearful of being eased out of what he saw as his rightful
protectorate. It
> wasn't until later, when Elizabeth Woodville and her adherents took
a hard
> line (understandably given the circumstances) that Richard's
ambitions
> really stirred. This historian also added his opinion that "it's
more a
> story of all sorts of limited people out of their depth" than one of
> conscious villainy.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Dora asked:
"Mancini was a foreign diplomat in London, gathering
information to send home; why didn't he have better sources and more
accurate information? Why does he write as if he wasn't even
listening to the 6:00 street cryers (their version of the evening
news)? He should have been able to talk directly to members of
Richard's government, and to view state documents that bore on the
matters he discussed."

My understanding is that Mancini did not even speak English so was
somewhat hampered in his information gathering. He had to get
someone to translate for him. No wonder he didn't get things right.
It depended on who was translating and filtering what information he
did get.

Janet

Laura and I are going to try to put the 1890 Markham article in the
r3.org library; we figure the copyright has expired.

I have seen another well supported argument that assumes that Thomas
More wrote the book, but presents good reason to think he realized
the data simply didn't support the vituperative sort of work he was
expected to write, became half-hearted about it, and abruptly left
off writing it, leaving it unfinished. This would explain occasional
kind remarks about Richard.

Markham gives better reasons for thinking that the manuscript found
among More's papers was a partial copy in More's handwriting of one
of several versions of the book that were already in existence. He
thinks Bishop Morton himself may have written it.

Dora

He needed a translator. OK, diplomats often do. Try and imagine our
ambassador to Afghanistan. Good example of a place where confusion
reigns and things happen in a hurry. He and his translator get ALL
of their information by walking down the streets of the capital city
and listening selectively to the most colorful and salacious
purveyors of gossip.

No, I don't think so. Our ambassador to Afghanistan, and his staff,
talk to central members of the government and get their hands on the
key documents concerning any development - if they have to spy or
steal them.

Dora



-- In , "Janet <forevere@c...>"
<forevere@c...> wrote:
> Dora asked:
> "Mancini was a foreign diplomat in London, gathering
> information to send home; why didn't he have better sources and
more
> accurate information? Why does he write as if he wasn't even
> listening to the 6:00 street cryers (their version of the evening
> news)? He should have been able to talk directly to members of
> Richard's government, and to view state documents that bore on the
> matters he discussed."
>
> My understanding is that Mancini did not even speak English so
was
> somewhat hampered in his information gathering. He had to get
> someone to translate for him. No wonder he didn't get things right.
> It depended on who was translating and filtering what information
he
> did get.
>
> Janet

Dora suggested:
"Our ambassador to Afghanistan, and his staff,
talk to central members of the government and get their hands on the
key documents concerning any development - if they have to spy or
steal them."

Methods are different now than in the 15th century.
See the American Branch webpage for information on Dominic Mancini.
Here is some observations by Jeremy Potter, former Chairman of the
Richard III Society, in his notes for his book "To Priove a Villain":

" Indeed he fairly sets out the case, made by Buckingham,
arguing the legitimacy of Richard's claim. But his honesty as a
reporter is offset by ignorance of English affairs, customs and
geography and probably the English language too and vitiated by his
consequent reliance on a limited number of not necessarily reliable
sources.

Mancini's objectivity about Richard is seriously qualified too by
the assumption - unproven and far from certain - that Richard was
aiming for the throne from the moment he learned of his brother's
death. It appears that Mancini never even glimpsed Richard (who was
in the north until May), nor talked with anyone close to him. Yet
his account confirms the acceptance even by those hostile to Richard
that he was indeed named as Protector in his brother's will (which
has not survived)."

John Argentine, the royal physician, was a fellow Italian, and he
seems most likely to have been the source of the passages for which
this work is best known. Mancini describes how, after the execution
of Hastings, Edward V and his brother were at first deprived of
their attendants, then withdrawn into inner apartments in the Tower,
then seen more and more rarely, until they vanished from sight
altogether. Of Edward V he wrote: 'He had such dignity in his whole
person, and in his face such charm, that however much they might
gaze he never wearied the eyes of beholders. I have seen many men
burst forth into tears and lamentations when mention was made of him
after his removal from men's sight; and already there was a
suspicion that he had been done away with.'

This passage is often quoted as proof of Richard's villainy.
But Mancini, with a strict regard for truth, concludes it with a
disclaimer: 'Whether, however, he has been done away with, and by
what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.'

This was a time of shifting politics and loyalties, not all
sources were reliable or even knew what was "really" going on even
if they were in government circles. Also, Mancini was only in
England for the first 6 months of Richard's reign.
I would imagine our ambassador in Afghanistan has much the same
problems - you don't think we are geting all the staight skinny from
there, do you?

Janet

Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...>06/01/2003 4:24tiggernut24@...

> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
>> --- In , Dora Smith
>> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
>>
>> Clarence was married to the sister of Richard's wife. Have you
>> thought that she may've pressured Richard into taking a sympathetic
>> line with Clarence against Edward and, then, there was Hasting's
>> invitation to do something about Dorset's hasty desire to remove
>> Richard from the top dog position.
>
> It would be a surprise if she didn't make such an effort. It seems
> unlikely to me it was she who carried the day. But Penman argues
> that she had good cause to detest Clarence, and Penman's version of
> the "kidnapping" is that Anne slipped away from Clarence's custody
> with a maid or someone of the sort, and hid at an inn owned by people
> the maid knew, and worked for them until Richard came looking for
> her. Clarence had been very abusive toward her, and Penman argued
> that she ran on account of something he was planning to do to her.
>
> I don't know what the second part means.
>
> Dora
well don't rely on Penman or any fiction! Don't know why she changed a story
that is well documented. Clarence hid her away from Richard in an inn in the
city and had her dressed as a kitchen maid. Such a story is too good to make
up, especially at a time when there was no animosity for Richard anywhere.
Paul

I forgot to point out I know Penman's work is fiction. She didn't
invent a whole lot, though. Sometimes she did give her own take on
stories. I would like to know if this is an actual version of what
happened, or Penman's take. I don't actually know enough about what
happened, need more info period.

Dora


--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>06/01/2003 4:24tiggernut24@y...
>
> > Dora
> well don't rely on Penman or any fiction! Don't know why she
changed a story
> that is well documented. Clarence hid her away from Richard in an
inn in the
> city and had her dressed as a kitchen maid. Such a story is too
good to make
> up, especially at a time when there was no animosity for Richard
anywhere.
> Paul

What are sources of the idea Clarence kidnapped her and forced her to
wrok as a kitchen maid? I've seen that said enough times, but I've
never seen any source cited for this story.

Dora

> > Dora
> well don't rely on Penman or any fiction! Don't know why she
changed a story
> that is well documented. Clarence hid her away from Richard in an
inn in the
> city and had her dressed as a kitchen maid. Such a story is too
good to make
> up, especially at a time when there was no animosity for Richard
anywhere.
> Paul

Well Penman certainly is fiction - while the book certainly reads well from
what i remember of it, it is just one take. Quite frankly her Richard is
about as believable as a medieval style King Arthur and belongs firmly in
the realms of fiction. As both Paul and I pointed out the kitchen maid
story is documented but only in Croyland if my memory isn't playing tricks.
As to the rest of the book well she relies heavily on Kendall for the 1460's
and there is considerable historical doubt regarding the time Richard spent
in Warwick's household (a much shorter period and it's unlikely that George
spent any time in it all).

----- Original Message -----
From: <tiggernut24@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: evidence that Richard opposed the
execution of Clarence


> I forgot to point out I know Penman's work is fiction. She didn't
> invent a whole lot, though. Sometimes she did give her own take on
> stories. I would like to know if this is an actual version of what
> happened, or Penman's take. I don't actually know enough about what
> happened, need more info period.
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>06/01/2003 4:24tiggernut24@y...
> >
> > > Dora
> > well don't rely on Penman or any fiction! Don't know why she
> changed a story
> > that is well documented. Clarence hid her away from Richard in an
> inn in the
> > city and had her dressed as a kitchen maid. Such a story is too
> good to make
> > up, especially at a time when there was no animosity for Richard
> anywhere.
> > Paul
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>