George Buck
George Buck
2011-01-03 15:30:35
I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used to be.
I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle Richard, which we hope is false. Bus since no letter so far exists, it might have been a bit of creativity on the part of Buck. He died in 1622. There were no dates given for the "discoveries" but they would be interesting to know, given his mental health history.
His book is pro-Richard - the first one written and published - which shows how far back doubts about the Tudor interpretation of events go.
L.M.L.,
Janet
I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle Richard, which we hope is false. Bus since no letter so far exists, it might have been a bit of creativity on the part of Buck. He died in 1622. There were no dates given for the "discoveries" but they would be interesting to know, given his mental health history.
His book is pro-Richard - the first one written and published - which shows how far back doubts about the Tudor interpretation of events go.
L.M.L.,
Janet
Re: George Buck
2011-01-03 18:34:15
i'm quite busy today. just taking a tea break. i've pulled my copy of buck's history of r3. it is edited by a.n. kincaid. beginning on page xi, kincaid writes that a mark eccles wrote a difficult to follow but exhaustive biography on buck. perhaps someone on the list has access to eccles work.
i believe one of the forum members has access to the ODNB, perhaps they could do a look up on george buck. it is interesting to note that buck wrote about r3 in 1619 and then dies in 1622. therefore in a space of three years he's "insane".
an edited version of the book is finally printed in 1646. three years later oliver cromwell is lord protector and charles i has been executed at the climax of the rebellion. fourteen years later, charles ii returns to england. fourteen years later, under c2's reign "the bones" are found.
now, i do not believe buck's book began the republican movement, but it was certainly safer to publish it then than in 1619. i do think that there were problems for c2 in the 1670's and "finding" the lost princes could have been a wee bit of a move to gain "political" sympathy for the crown.
tea break is over. i'll do a bit more research on buck's life via kincaid's book later today or tomorrow.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 1/3/11, J. T, <treenbagh@...> wrote:
From: J. T, <treenbagh@...>
Subject: George Buck
To:
Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 8:30 AM
I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used to be.
I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle Richard, which we hope is false. Bus since no letter so far exists, it might have been a bit of creativity on the part of Buck. He died in 1622. There were no dates given for the "discoveries" but they would be interesting to know, given his mental health history.
His book is pro-Richard - the first one written and published - which shows how far back doubts about the Tudor interpretation of events go.
L.M.L.,
Janet
i believe one of the forum members has access to the ODNB, perhaps they could do a look up on george buck. it is interesting to note that buck wrote about r3 in 1619 and then dies in 1622. therefore in a space of three years he's "insane".
an edited version of the book is finally printed in 1646. three years later oliver cromwell is lord protector and charles i has been executed at the climax of the rebellion. fourteen years later, charles ii returns to england. fourteen years later, under c2's reign "the bones" are found.
now, i do not believe buck's book began the republican movement, but it was certainly safer to publish it then than in 1619. i do think that there were problems for c2 in the 1670's and "finding" the lost princes could have been a wee bit of a move to gain "political" sympathy for the crown.
tea break is over. i'll do a bit more research on buck's life via kincaid's book later today or tomorrow.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 1/3/11, J. T, <treenbagh@...> wrote:
From: J. T, <treenbagh@...>
Subject: George Buck
To:
Received: Monday, January 3, 2011, 8:30 AM
I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used to be.
I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle Richard, which we hope is false. Bus since no letter so far exists, it might have been a bit of creativity on the part of Buck. He died in 1622. There were no dates given for the "discoveries" but they would be interesting to know, given his mental health history.
His book is pro-Richard - the first one written and published - which shows how far back doubts about the Tudor interpretation of events go.
L.M.L.,
Janet
Re: George Buck
2011-01-03 19:21:47
--- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@...> wrote:
>
> I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used to be.
> I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle Richard, which we hope is false.
I don't have a copy of Buck's book at hand, but as I recall it is not his original manuscript, but instead it has been edited by his great-nephew (?) also named George Buck. Who knows how much that "editing" has altered Buck's thoughts and observations.
On the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk, I have a lot of questions. Again, as I recall, Buck says he has seen the letter, but he does not quote it verbatim -- he tells us what it says. Or is he telling us what he thinks it says?
That is, did the letter actually say "I wish Queen Anne would hurry up and die so I can marry darling Richard?" or did it say "I wish she would go ahead and die so I can marry him?" or even something more vague such as "I wish the long wait were over so my marriage plans could proceed" which is quite a different kettle of fish.
In the first instance, Elizabeth would have to be crazy to put such thoughts in writing. Even trying to find out when a king would die was a capital crime, as Eleanor de Bohun could testify. I don't know if wishing a queen would die was equally treasonous, but it certainly wasn't a thing you would put on paper and send off to a member of the king's council.
Or is this a case of historical surmise -- of someone guessing who the pronouns represent? A good case has been made that Elizabeth was referring not to Queen Anne and King Richard, but to a foreign marriage that was being arranged for her. (Someone please supply the specifics here.)
Another point -- how literate was Elizabeth of York, anyway? I would guess that she was literate enough in English, since she would eventually be heading a large noble household even though no one may have expected her to be a queen. But if she wrote an incriminating or even just overly-revealing letter to Norfolk, would she write it in English? Or would she attempt to restrict the number of people who could understand it by attempting French or Latin? We've seen the way one can get lost in declensions and possessive case in either of those languages -- that opens a whole new can of he-who, she-who, who is speaking? complications.
Thirdly, there is the matter of slanted history. I used to think that historians were seekers of the truth, then I became disillusioned by discovering that some (many?) historians start out with a conclusion or point of view and work backwards to prove it. I think that in research, as much fact is kicked under the table or slipped under the desk blotter because it is inconvenient and doesn't jibe with a particular writer's mind-set and hobby horse as finds the light of day. I recall a professional historian (though not by name) who was livid with anger in one of her books because another historian had deliberately mis-stated a document that, said the accused writer, proved that Robert the Bruce had betrayed William Wallace. She had quoted one section of a court document that seemed to establish that. The angry historian reproduced the entire document, which gave the full names of the men referred to in subsequent paragraphs as "said Bruce" and "said Wallace" -- and they were not Robert Bruce and William Wallace.
And, of course, other historians and history book writers had faithfully and lazily simply repeated the first historian's deliberately incorrect statement that the Bruce betrayed Wallace, and now it's probably irretrievably something "everyone knows."
Katy
>
> I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used to be.
> I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle Richard, which we hope is false.
I don't have a copy of Buck's book at hand, but as I recall it is not his original manuscript, but instead it has been edited by his great-nephew (?) also named George Buck. Who knows how much that "editing" has altered Buck's thoughts and observations.
On the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk, I have a lot of questions. Again, as I recall, Buck says he has seen the letter, but he does not quote it verbatim -- he tells us what it says. Or is he telling us what he thinks it says?
That is, did the letter actually say "I wish Queen Anne would hurry up and die so I can marry darling Richard?" or did it say "I wish she would go ahead and die so I can marry him?" or even something more vague such as "I wish the long wait were over so my marriage plans could proceed" which is quite a different kettle of fish.
In the first instance, Elizabeth would have to be crazy to put such thoughts in writing. Even trying to find out when a king would die was a capital crime, as Eleanor de Bohun could testify. I don't know if wishing a queen would die was equally treasonous, but it certainly wasn't a thing you would put on paper and send off to a member of the king's council.
Or is this a case of historical surmise -- of someone guessing who the pronouns represent? A good case has been made that Elizabeth was referring not to Queen Anne and King Richard, but to a foreign marriage that was being arranged for her. (Someone please supply the specifics here.)
Another point -- how literate was Elizabeth of York, anyway? I would guess that she was literate enough in English, since she would eventually be heading a large noble household even though no one may have expected her to be a queen. But if she wrote an incriminating or even just overly-revealing letter to Norfolk, would she write it in English? Or would she attempt to restrict the number of people who could understand it by attempting French or Latin? We've seen the way one can get lost in declensions and possessive case in either of those languages -- that opens a whole new can of he-who, she-who, who is speaking? complications.
Thirdly, there is the matter of slanted history. I used to think that historians were seekers of the truth, then I became disillusioned by discovering that some (many?) historians start out with a conclusion or point of view and work backwards to prove it. I think that in research, as much fact is kicked under the table or slipped under the desk blotter because it is inconvenient and doesn't jibe with a particular writer's mind-set and hobby horse as finds the light of day. I recall a professional historian (though not by name) who was livid with anger in one of her books because another historian had deliberately mis-stated a document that, said the accused writer, proved that Robert the Bruce had betrayed William Wallace. She had quoted one section of a court document that seemed to establish that. The angry historian reproduced the entire document, which gave the full names of the men referred to in subsequent paragraphs as "said Bruce" and "said Wallace" -- and they were not Robert Bruce and William Wallace.
And, of course, other historians and history book writers had faithfully and lazily simply repeated the first historian's deliberately incorrect statement that the Bruce betrayed Wallace, and now it's probably irretrievably something "everyone knows."
Katy
Re: George Buck
2011-01-03 21:48:56
I know that Starkey isn't Ricardians' favourite guy, but he is a pretty
decent Tudor historian. In his series on Henry VIII, he showed
comparisons between Elizabeth of York's penmanship and young Henry's,
such that it is a pretty plausible theory that she may have been his
most important penmanship teacher. Starkey's contention is that, since
Henry was not intended to be king (that is until Arthur died), he may
have spent longer under the tutelage of his mother than did his brother.
There are some striking resemblances in letters...especially the letter 'y'.
On 03/01/2011 2:21 PM, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "J. T,"
> <treenbagh@...> wrote:
> >
> > I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or
> somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used
> to be.
> > I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be
> repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically
> the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when
> denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of
> "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and
> of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk
> asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle
> Richard, which we hope is false.
>
> I don't have a copy of Buck's book at hand, but as I recall it is not
> his original manuscript, but instead it has been edited by his
> great-nephew (?) also named George Buck. Who knows how much that
> "editing" has altered Buck's thoughts and observations.
>
> On the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk, I have a lot of
> questions. Again, as I recall, Buck says he has seen the letter, but
> he does not quote it verbatim -- he tells us what it says. Or is he
> telling us what he thinks it says?
>
> That is, did the letter actually say "I wish Queen Anne would hurry up
> and die so I can marry darling Richard?" or did it say "I wish she
> would go ahead and die so I can marry him?" or even something more
> vague such as "I wish the long wait were over so my marriage plans
> could proceed" which is quite a different kettle of fish.
>
> In the first instance, Elizabeth would have to be crazy to put such
> thoughts in writing. Even trying to find out when a king would die was
> a capital crime, as Eleanor de Bohun could testify. I don't know if
> wishing a queen would die was equally treasonous, but it certainly
> wasn't a thing you would put on paper and send off to a member of the
> king's council.
>
> Or is this a case of historical surmise -- of someone guessing who the
> pronouns represent? A good case has been made that Elizabeth was
> referring not to Queen Anne and King Richard, but to a foreign
> marriage that was being arranged for her. (Someone please supply the
> specifics here.)
>
> Another point -- how literate was Elizabeth of York, anyway? I would
> guess that she was literate enough in English, since she would
> eventually be heading a large noble household even though no one may
> have expected her to be a queen. But if she wrote an incriminating or
> even just overly-revealing letter to Norfolk, would she write it in
> English? Or would she attempt to restrict the number of people who
> could understand it by attempting French or Latin? We've seen the way
> one can get lost in declensions and possessive case in either of those
> languages -- that opens a whole new can of he-who, she-who, who is
> speaking? complications.
>
> Thirdly, there is the matter of slanted history. I used to think that
> historians were seekers of the truth, then I became disillusioned by
> discovering that some (many?) historians start out with a conclusion
> or point of view and work backwards to prove it. I think that in
> research, as much fact is kicked under the table or slipped under the
> desk blotter because it is inconvenient and doesn't jibe with a
> particular writer's mind-set and hobby horse as finds the light of
> day. I recall a professional historian (though not by name) who was
> livid with anger in one of her books because another historian had
> deliberately mis-stated a document that, said the accused writer,
> proved that Robert the Bruce had betrayed William Wallace. She had
> quoted one section of a court document that seemed to establish that.
> The angry historian reproduced the entire document, which gave the
> full names of the men referred to in subsequent paragraphs as "said
> Bruce" and "said Wallace" -- and they were not Robert Bruce and
> William Wallace.
>
> And, of course, other historians and history book writers had
> faithfully and lazily simply repeated the first historian's
> deliberately incorrect statement that the Bruce betrayed Wallace, and
> now it's probably irretrievably something "everyone knows."
>
> Katy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3356 - Release Date: 01/03/11
>
decent Tudor historian. In his series on Henry VIII, he showed
comparisons between Elizabeth of York's penmanship and young Henry's,
such that it is a pretty plausible theory that she may have been his
most important penmanship teacher. Starkey's contention is that, since
Henry was not intended to be king (that is until Arthur died), he may
have spent longer under the tutelage of his mother than did his brother.
There are some striking resemblances in letters...especially the letter 'y'.
On 03/01/2011 2:21 PM, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "J. T,"
> <treenbagh@...> wrote:
> >
> > I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or
> somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used
> to be.
> > I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be
> repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically
> the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when
> denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of
> "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and
> of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk
> asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle
> Richard, which we hope is false.
>
> I don't have a copy of Buck's book at hand, but as I recall it is not
> his original manuscript, but instead it has been edited by his
> great-nephew (?) also named George Buck. Who knows how much that
> "editing" has altered Buck's thoughts and observations.
>
> On the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk, I have a lot of
> questions. Again, as I recall, Buck says he has seen the letter, but
> he does not quote it verbatim -- he tells us what it says. Or is he
> telling us what he thinks it says?
>
> That is, did the letter actually say "I wish Queen Anne would hurry up
> and die so I can marry darling Richard?" or did it say "I wish she
> would go ahead and die so I can marry him?" or even something more
> vague such as "I wish the long wait were over so my marriage plans
> could proceed" which is quite a different kettle of fish.
>
> In the first instance, Elizabeth would have to be crazy to put such
> thoughts in writing. Even trying to find out when a king would die was
> a capital crime, as Eleanor de Bohun could testify. I don't know if
> wishing a queen would die was equally treasonous, but it certainly
> wasn't a thing you would put on paper and send off to a member of the
> king's council.
>
> Or is this a case of historical surmise -- of someone guessing who the
> pronouns represent? A good case has been made that Elizabeth was
> referring not to Queen Anne and King Richard, but to a foreign
> marriage that was being arranged for her. (Someone please supply the
> specifics here.)
>
> Another point -- how literate was Elizabeth of York, anyway? I would
> guess that she was literate enough in English, since she would
> eventually be heading a large noble household even though no one may
> have expected her to be a queen. But if she wrote an incriminating or
> even just overly-revealing letter to Norfolk, would she write it in
> English? Or would she attempt to restrict the number of people who
> could understand it by attempting French or Latin? We've seen the way
> one can get lost in declensions and possessive case in either of those
> languages -- that opens a whole new can of he-who, she-who, who is
> speaking? complications.
>
> Thirdly, there is the matter of slanted history. I used to think that
> historians were seekers of the truth, then I became disillusioned by
> discovering that some (many?) historians start out with a conclusion
> or point of view and work backwards to prove it. I think that in
> research, as much fact is kicked under the table or slipped under the
> desk blotter because it is inconvenient and doesn't jibe with a
> particular writer's mind-set and hobby horse as finds the light of
> day. I recall a professional historian (though not by name) who was
> livid with anger in one of her books because another historian had
> deliberately mis-stated a document that, said the accused writer,
> proved that Robert the Bruce had betrayed William Wallace. She had
> quoted one section of a court document that seemed to establish that.
> The angry historian reproduced the entire document, which gave the
> full names of the men referred to in subsequent paragraphs as "said
> Bruce" and "said Wallace" -- and they were not Robert Bruce and
> William Wallace.
>
> And, of course, other historians and history book writers had
> faithfully and lazily simply repeated the first historian's
> deliberately incorrect statement that the Bruce betrayed Wallace, and
> now it's probably irretrievably something "everyone knows."
>
> Katy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3356 - Release Date: 01/03/11
>
Re: George Buck
2011-01-04 03:23:36
In regards to the letter allegedly written by Elizabeth of York, unless the letter is someday found, we can't really say what Buck actually saw. Since the young woman was not only Richard's niece, but also illegitimate, such a marriage would have been politically disastrous. Declaring her legitimate would have made her brothers legitimate as well.
Arguably, it's interesting that one of Elizabeth's books contains her signature, with her uncle's motto, written just above it. There's a photo of the signature with motto in Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs' history entitled Richard III's Books. Could the girl have had a crush on her uncle?
Kris
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@> wrote:
> >
> > I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used to be.
> > I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle Richard, which we hope is false.
>
>
> I don't have a copy of Buck's book at hand, but as I recall it is not his original manuscript, but instead it has been edited by his great-nephew (?) also named George Buck. Who knows how much that "editing" has altered Buck's thoughts and observations.
>
> On the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk, I have a lot of questions. Again, as I recall, Buck says he has seen the letter, but he does not quote it verbatim -- he tells us what it says. Or is he telling us what he thinks it says?
>
> That is, did the letter actually say "I wish Queen Anne would hurry up and die so I can marry darling Richard?" or did it say "I wish she would go ahead and die so I can marry him?" or even something more vague such as "I wish the long wait were over so my marriage plans could proceed" which is quite a different kettle of fish.
>
> In the first instance, Elizabeth would have to be crazy to put such thoughts in writing. Even trying to find out when a king would die was a capital crime, as Eleanor de Bohun could testify. I don't know if wishing a queen would die was equally treasonous, but it certainly wasn't a thing you would put on paper and send off to a member of the king's council.
>
> Or is this a case of historical surmise -- of someone guessing who the pronouns represent? A good case has been made that Elizabeth was referring not to Queen Anne and King Richard, but to a foreign marriage that was being arranged for her. (Someone please supply the specifics here.)
>
> Another point -- how literate was Elizabeth of York, anyway? I would guess that she was literate enough in English, since she would eventually be heading a large noble household even though no one may have expected her to be a queen. But if she wrote an incriminating or even just overly-revealing letter to Norfolk, would she write it in English? Or would she attempt to restrict the number of people who could understand it by attempting French or Latin? We've seen the way one can get lost in declensions and possessive case in either of those languages -- that opens a whole new can of he-who, she-who, who is speaking? complications.
>
> Thirdly, there is the matter of slanted history. I used to think that historians were seekers of the truth, then I became disillusioned by discovering that some (many?) historians start out with a conclusion or point of view and work backwards to prove it. I think that in research, as much fact is kicked under the table or slipped under the desk blotter because it is inconvenient and doesn't jibe with a particular writer's mind-set and hobby horse as finds the light of day. I recall a professional historian (though not by name) who was livid with anger in one of her books because another historian had deliberately mis-stated a document that, said the accused writer, proved that Robert the Bruce had betrayed William Wallace. She had quoted one section of a court document that seemed to establish that. The angry historian reproduced the entire document, which gave the full names of the men referred to in subsequent paragraphs as "said Bruce" and "said Wallace" -- and they were not Robert Bruce and William Wallace.
>
> And, of course, other historians and history book writers had faithfully and lazily simply repeated the first historian's deliberately incorrect statement that the Bruce betrayed Wallace, and now it's probably irretrievably something "everyone knows."
>
> Katy
>
Arguably, it's interesting that one of Elizabeth's books contains her signature, with her uncle's motto, written just above it. There's a photo of the signature with motto in Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs' history entitled Richard III's Books. Could the girl have had a crush on her uncle?
Kris
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "J. T," <treenbagh@> wrote:
> >
> > I believe these days we would say he had Alzheimer's or dementia or somethng like that. He wasn't "insane" per se but not the man he used to be.
> > I checked several "sources" on the Web and they all seem to be repetitions of the article on Wikipedia. Even the wording is basically the same - kind of like the blind rote many "historians" spout when denigrating Richard III. Buck is credited with finding the copy of "Titulus Regius" in the Croyland Chronicle, which we know is true and of also discovering the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk asking for his help is promoting a marriage between her and her Uncle Richard, which we hope is false.
>
>
> I don't have a copy of Buck's book at hand, but as I recall it is not his original manuscript, but instead it has been edited by his great-nephew (?) also named George Buck. Who knows how much that "editing" has altered Buck's thoughts and observations.
>
> On the letter from Elizabeth of York to Norfolk, I have a lot of questions. Again, as I recall, Buck says he has seen the letter, but he does not quote it verbatim -- he tells us what it says. Or is he telling us what he thinks it says?
>
> That is, did the letter actually say "I wish Queen Anne would hurry up and die so I can marry darling Richard?" or did it say "I wish she would go ahead and die so I can marry him?" or even something more vague such as "I wish the long wait were over so my marriage plans could proceed" which is quite a different kettle of fish.
>
> In the first instance, Elizabeth would have to be crazy to put such thoughts in writing. Even trying to find out when a king would die was a capital crime, as Eleanor de Bohun could testify. I don't know if wishing a queen would die was equally treasonous, but it certainly wasn't a thing you would put on paper and send off to a member of the king's council.
>
> Or is this a case of historical surmise -- of someone guessing who the pronouns represent? A good case has been made that Elizabeth was referring not to Queen Anne and King Richard, but to a foreign marriage that was being arranged for her. (Someone please supply the specifics here.)
>
> Another point -- how literate was Elizabeth of York, anyway? I would guess that she was literate enough in English, since she would eventually be heading a large noble household even though no one may have expected her to be a queen. But if she wrote an incriminating or even just overly-revealing letter to Norfolk, would she write it in English? Or would she attempt to restrict the number of people who could understand it by attempting French or Latin? We've seen the way one can get lost in declensions and possessive case in either of those languages -- that opens a whole new can of he-who, she-who, who is speaking? complications.
>
> Thirdly, there is the matter of slanted history. I used to think that historians were seekers of the truth, then I became disillusioned by discovering that some (many?) historians start out with a conclusion or point of view and work backwards to prove it. I think that in research, as much fact is kicked under the table or slipped under the desk blotter because it is inconvenient and doesn't jibe with a particular writer's mind-set and hobby horse as finds the light of day. I recall a professional historian (though not by name) who was livid with anger in one of her books because another historian had deliberately mis-stated a document that, said the accused writer, proved that Robert the Bruce had betrayed William Wallace. She had quoted one section of a court document that seemed to establish that. The angry historian reproduced the entire document, which gave the full names of the men referred to in subsequent paragraphs as "said Bruce" and "said Wallace" -- and they were not Robert Bruce and William Wallace.
>
> And, of course, other historians and history book writers had faithfully and lazily simply repeated the first historian's deliberately incorrect statement that the Bruce betrayed Wallace, and now it's probably irretrievably something "everyone knows."
>
> Katy
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.