The Katherine Howard problem

For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?

Candidates for being cuckolded would be:

the apparently gay Edward II

And the often mad Henry VI.

Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.

Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.

We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?


`Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'

Going way off period, you can toss in a probable for Catherine the Great, too.

Steering back to our period time-wise but roaming south (as is my current custom, it seems), a queen had to be careful, as shown by the sad fate of the daughter of Juana of Portugal, second wife of Enrique IV of Castile. The fact that Enrique's soubrequette was "the Impotent" is an idication of why Juana, 16 years old and fond of fun when she married Enrique, might have been tempted to graze beyond her legal boundaries, in this case with a favorite of Enrique's, don Beltran de la Cueva. In the course of events, a daughter was born. Because she had as much chance of being don Beltran's daughter as Enrique's, she was known as la Beltraneja, and her doubtful parentage was major leverage for her aunt Isabel's eventual succession to the throne.

As an addendum to Juana's story, the legend is that she was briefly put away, had an affair with the lord of the castle where she was installed and was then summoned back to court to stand up for her daughter's legitimacy (the details are way to complicated to go through here). She was pregnant, and in order to try to hide the fact, came up with the prototype of the hoop skirt. Isabel the Catholic ended up being very fond of the fashion, which is ironic in view of its presumed origin. In fact there's a bit of correspondence between Isabel and Bishop Talavera wherein he criticizes her for wearing such an indecent style and she replies that it's comfortable and easier to walk in than other types of skirts are.

Maria
elena@...


-----Original Message-----
From: vermeertwo
Sent: Feb 14, 2011 8:22 AM
To:
Subject: The Katherine Howard problem


For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?

Candidates for being cuckolded would be:

the apparently gay Edward II

And the often mad Henry VI.

Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.

Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.

We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?

`Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'

There's no evidence whatsoever (unless you count the movie Braveheart as evidence) that any of Isabella's four children were fathered by anyone other than Edward II. The couple were together at the necessary times; and Edward II acted in all respects as if the children were his, giving Isabella gifts, rewarding the messengers who brought him news of the children's births, and coddling Isabella during her pregnancies. Isabella didn't begin her relationship with Roger Mortimer until after the last of the children were born. Edward II was sufficiently interested in women to father an illegitimate child, Adam, probably before his marriage to Isabella. You might want to check out Kathryn Warner's excellent blog on the subject of Edward II and the various myths surrounding him.

http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/

As for Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI was sane at the time of the conception, and the couple were together at Greenwich at the time Edward of Lancaster would have been conceived. Henry VI gave an annunity to the man who brought him news of Margaret's pregnancy, bought her an expensive girdle known as a "demicent" during her pregnancy, and gave her a generous grant of land. A letter in the Paston collection indicates that after his recovery from madness, he expressed pleasure (not surprise) in learning of the birth of his son:

January 9, 1455.

Right welbeloved cosyn,—I recomaund me to you, latyng you wite such tidings as we have.

Blessed be God, the King is wel amended, and hath ben syn Cristemesday, and on Seint Jones day comaunded his awmener to ride to Caunterbury with his offryng, and comaunded the secretarie to offre at Seint Edwards.

And on the Moneday after noon the Queen came to him, and brought my Lord Prynce with her. And then he askid what the Princes name was, and the Queen told him Edward; and then he hild up his hands and thankid God therof. And he seid he never knew til that tyme, nor wist not what was seid to him, nor wist not where he had be, whils he hath be seke til now.

And he askid who was godfaders, and the Queen told him, and he was
well apaid.

. . .

And my Lord of Wynchestr and my Lord of Seint Jones were with him on the morrow after Tweltheday, and he speke to hem as well as ever he did; and when thei come out thei wept for joye. And he seith he is in charitee with all the world, and so he wold all tho Lords were. And now he seith matyns of Our Lady and evesong, and herith his Masse devoutly . . .

As for the old story that Henry VI, unable to comprehend how he could have been the father of Margaret's child, declared that it must be the work of the Holy Spirit, this tale comes from a dispatch on March 27, 1461, from Prospero di Camulio, Milanese Ambassador in France, to Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan. Writing from Brussels about the latest English news, Camulio reported that it was being "said that the King of England had resigned his crown in favour of his son, although they say his Majesty remarked at another time, that he must be the son of the Holy Spirit, etc." What writers who latch onto this statement almost never quote is the rest of Camulio's sentence: "but these may only be the words of common fanatics, such as they have at present in that island." Certainly the timing of this gossip, circulating just a few weeks after Edward IV had taken the throne—and more than seven years after Edward of Lancaster's birth—should make us suspicious, as it did Camulio. Incidentally, on March 15, 1461, Prospero di Camulio had also passed along the rumor that Margaret of Anjou had poisoned Henry VI, who in fact was very much alive.

You might want to read Helen Maurer's book about Margaret, and especially the chapter in which she discusses the various rumors about Edward of Lancaster's parentage.

Susan Higginbotham


--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?
>
> Candidates for being cuckolded would be:
>
> the apparently gay Edward II
>
> And the often mad Henry VI.
>
> Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.
>
> Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.
>
> We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?
>
>
> `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'
>

"vermeertwo" wrote:

> For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?
>
> Candidates for being cuckolded would be:
>
> the apparently gay Edward II
>
> And the often mad Henry VI.
>
> Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.
>
> Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.
>
> We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?
>
> `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'
>
Carol responds:

We don't know that Richard had any extramarital relationships. In fact, he seems to have been (like Charles the Bold) known for his fidelity to his wife. His two known bastards, Katherine and John, were born before his marriage. Many other English kings and princes (John of Gaunt, for example) were known or suspected to have had mistresses.

As for women, Richard's sister Margaret was suspected of having had an affair with a bishop, just as his mother was accused of having had an affair with an archer named Blaybourne (sp?) that resulted in the firth of her son Edward, and, IIRC, Geoffrey of Anjou suspected that his wife, Maud the Empress, had had an affair with her cousin Stephen of Blount (with whom she later went to war). If so, the first Plantagenet king, Henry II, wasn't a Plantagenet, and neither were any of his descendants. I think we can safely dismiss those rumors as propaganda.

As for Edward II, I suspect that he was bisexual. He probably performed his "duty" to father children, unlike Richard I, who was more interested in war than in women. And I'd like to believe that Henry VI was both impotent and too saintly (or innocent or mentally impaired) to father a child and that Margaret of Anjou was such a dynast that she would result to adultery to produce an heir to the throne, but it's only fair to extend to them the same benefit of a doubt that we extend to Richard.

Carol, who has no interest in watching "The Tudors," which appears to be almost as far from historically accurate as Shakespeare's "history" plays

Just a few clarifications:
i) As Brian's "The Yorkist Age" has shown, Sir William Wallace was publicly executed seven years before Edward III was born - and the penultimate stage of the execution was castration. Even an elephant only gestates for two years at a time.
ii) Even if Matilda and her cousin had slept together (extremely unlikely), her maternal descent made her offspring Saxons, which is far more important than Plantagenet descent.
iii) Mater semper certa est, pater non certa est.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



"vermeertwo" wrote:

> For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?
>
> Candidates for being cuckolded would be:
>
> the apparently gay Edward II
>
> And the often mad Henry VI.
>
> Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.
>
> Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.
>
> We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?
>
> `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'
>
Carol responds:

We don't know that Richard had any extramarital relationships. In fact, he seems to have been (like Charles the Bold) known for his fidelity to his wife. His two known bastards, Katherine and John, were born before his marriage. Many other English kings and princes (John of Gaunt, for example) were known or suspected to have had mistresses.

As for women, Richard's sister Margaret was suspected of having had an affair with a bishop, just as his mother was accused of having had an affair with an archer named Blaybourne (sp?) that resulted in the firth of her son Edward, and, IIRC, Geoffrey of Anjou suspected that his wife, Maud the Empress, had had an affair with her cousin Stephen of Blount (with whom she later went to war). If so, the first Plantagenet king, Henry II, wasn't a Plantagenet, and neither were any of his descendants. I think we can safely dismiss those rumors as propaganda.

As for Edward II, I suspect that he was bisexual. He probably performed his "duty" to father children, unlike Richard I, who was more interested in war than in women. And I'd like to believe that Henry VI was both impotent and too saintly (or innocent or mentally impaired) to father a child and that Margaret of Anjou was such a dynast that she would result to adultery to produce an heir to the throne, but it's only fair to extend to them the same benefit of a doubt that we extend to Richard.

Carol, who has no interest in watching "The Tudors," which appears to be almost as far from historically accurate as Shakespeare's "history" plays

if you start researching genealogy you will find tons of noble born illegitimate children. the clergy had illegits. think of the borgia pope. in our modern era we have been taught that people of the middle ages were chaste and valourious.
 
what was told to common people was not done among the upper classes. homosexuality is also known as the aristrocratic vice. the court of james i, of england was from what i'm finding was very open sexually, particularily for the males. james himself was called queen james, who inherited the throne from king elizabeth. it is said he was homosexual, as it is also implied that francis bacon (author of h7's bio) preferred to bed men, rather than women.
 
there are rumours that elizabeth i had children and had them killed. there is even a myth that she was killed and replaced with a castrated illegitimate son of h8.
 
consider the codpieces worn in the tudor era. single women went about with one or both breasts bare. imagine such fashion sense in our modern era..gasp! it's enough to bring the church lady back to saturday night live!
 
prior to the protestant reformation, sex was not the huge taboo that it is today. the production of an heir and a spare was a necessity for the nobility. but, after that it appears to have been anyone's game. the no holds barred in bed hopping, was basically a personal preference for these people. 
there are even 3 classes of bastard.
1   ordinary, non church ordained parents
2   a member of the church who has taken their vows and an ordinary person
3   both parents are members of the church, who have taken their vows.
 
illegitimate children, especially those born of nobility were often raised with and included in the noble's family.the main problem with being born on the wrong side of the blanket was that the child/issue could not inherit. however, the parent of the child could settle an estate on the child for that child's life time. the mythology was...well bred girls were chaste, and the boys could go sow their wild oats. what was taboo or disgusting to these people was to "breed" with a lower class.
 
i also tend to think of e2 as try-sexual. in other words, he'd try anything sexual with anyone.
 
also, wikipedia has an interesting write up on chastity belts. basically there was no such thing prior to the 15thC. it's all protestant mythology.
 
so, in conclusion our purtian value system regarding sex comes from the guy and era that gave the vulgar masses the king james bible. and for such a "nice" twist of social morals, women were still being locked up in asylums for sexual insanity as late as the 1920's. especially, if she came from a "nice" family or was impregnated by a cad from the upper classes.
 
roslyn
 
--- On Mon, 2/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Received: Monday, February 14, 2011, 8:22 AM


 





For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?

Candidates for being cuckolded would be:

the apparently gay Edward II

And the often mad Henry VI.

Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.

Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.

We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?

`Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'

Interesting discussion this.

I'm not sure that the change from nominally Catholic to nominally Protestant hardened sexual attitudes among the nobility. There was a 17th or 18th century Earl of Oxford whose children were known as the Harleian Miscellany because they were fathered by just about anyone but him. Among the upper classes the attitude that free love was OK after the birth of a couple of children was not that unusual in Edwardian times, when there was apparently much discreet shunting between bedrooms at country house parties. In our own times Mr Parker-Bowles (I apologise to the gentleman for forgetting his military title) was apparently quite unfazed by his wife having regular sex with Prince Charles until it hit the papers and the plebs found out.

Medieval and Tudor kings could do pretty much what they wanted on a personal level. If they announced they were going off on their own for a few hours (or off with Hastings or his equivalent) then the boys of the entourage would probably go into nudge and wink mode and have a laugh about the boss being up to his old tricks again. No one would mind, and even if someone went out of their way to tell the Queen, the Queen had no redress beyond sulking or shouting.

Medieval and Tudor Queens on the other hand lived surrounded by a host of women who had an unspoken duty to watch over them. We are not talking about one friendly maid, but maybe a dozen or twenty females of various ranks. I doubt even the wisest and gentlest of queens could get all of her entourage so far on side that they could *all* be relied upon to co-operate or keep quiet. In my experience women do not need things spelled out in letters three feet high. They tend to pick up on non-verbal signals, on subtle changes. If the Queen was having freelance sex her women would know, and at least one of them would talk. There is also the practical detail of getting to be alone. It would be highly suspicious for a woman of such high rank to seek privacy. Attendance was part of her status. Oh, and the Queen had men and boys serving her too. By the score. She would need to get away from the whole lot.

Of course lovers can be ingenious. But adultery in women was not laughed off. Consider the fate of the sisters-in-law of Isabella the Fair. One was allegedly murdered in prison, another died there. A third, the least culpable who did not actually commit adultery but merely connived in it, was eventually allowed back to her husband after many years in a nunnery.

At a more humdrum level, in 15th century Norfolk Sir Thomas Tuddenham found his wife was false to him. He found some cause to 'divorce' her straightaway. (Adultery was not a cause, hence I say 'found'.) The Pastons had a good laugh at his expense, but clearly this was not something taken lightly.

To me it is instructive that Edward IV generally preferred widows. Widows were their own boss. They could tell their women to go away if they liked and no one could do anything about it. For married women and unmarried girls the double standard was as alive in the 15th C as it was in the 19th.

Brian W



--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> if you start researching genealogy you will find tons of noble born illegitimate children. the clergy had illegits. think of the borgia pope. in our modern era we have been taught that people of the middle ages were chaste and valourious.
>  
> what was told to common people was not done among the upper classes. homosexuality is also known as the aristrocratic vice. the court of james i, of england was from what i'm finding was very open sexually, particularily for the males. james himself was called queen james, who inherited the throne from king elizabeth. it is said he was homosexual, as it is also implied that francis bacon (author of h7's bio) preferred to bed men, rather than women.
>  
> there are rumours that elizabeth i had children and had them killed. there is even a myth that she was killed and replaced with a castrated illegitimate son of h8.
>  
> consider the codpieces worn in the tudor era. single women went about with one or both breasts bare. imagine such fashion sense in our modern era..gasp! it's enough to bring the church lady back to saturday night live!
>  
> prior to the protestant reformation, sex was not the huge taboo that it is today. the production of an heir and a spare was a necessity for the nobility. but, after that it appears to have been anyone's game. the no holds barred in bed hopping, was basically a personal preference for these people. 
> there are even 3 classes of bastard.
> 1   ordinary, non church ordained parents
> 2   a member of the church who has taken their vows and an ordinary person
> 3   both parents are members of the church, who have taken their vows.
>  
> illegitimate children, especially those born of nobility were often raised with and included in the noble's family.the main problem with being born on the wrong side of the blanket was that the child/issue could not inherit. however, the parent of the child could settle an estate on the child for that child's life time. the mythology was...well bred girls were chaste, and the boys could go sow their wild oats. what was taboo or disgusting to these people was to "breed" with a lower class.
>  
> i also tend to think of e2 as try-sexual. in other words, he'd try anything sexual with anyone.
>  
> also, wikipedia has an interesting write up on chastity belts. basically there was no such thing prior to the 15thC. it's all protestant mythology.
>  
> so, in conclusion our purtian value system regarding sex comes from the guy and era that gave the vulgar masses the king james bible. and for such a "nice" twist of social morals, women were still being locked up in asylums for sexual insanity as late as the 1920's. especially, if she came from a "nice" family or was impregnated by a cad from the upper classes.
>  
> roslyn
>  
> --- On Mon, 2/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Received: Monday, February 14, 2011, 8:22 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?
>
> Candidates for being cuckolded would be:
>
> the apparently gay Edward II
>
> And the often mad Henry VI.
>
> Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.
>
> Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.
>
> We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?
>
> `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 (I apologise to the gentleman for forgetting his military title)

Silver Stick in  Waiting  (and no I have no idea what it means either)

Of course he was renowned for  having sex with half the female aristocracy so I
don't think he gave a damn what Camilla got up.




________________________________
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 15 February, 2011 9:47:40
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

 
Interesting discussion this.

I'm not sure that the change from nominally Catholic to nominally Protestant
hardened sexual attitudes among the nobility. There was a 17th or 18th century
Earl of Oxford whose children were known as the Harleian Miscellany because they
were fathered by just about anyone but him. Among the upper classes the attitude
that free love was OK after the birth of a couple of children was not that
unusual in Edwardian times, when there was apparently much discreet shunting
between bedrooms at country house parties. In our own times Mr Parker-Bowles (I
apologise to the gentleman for forgetting his military title) was apparently
quite unfazed by his wife having regular sex with Prince Charles until it hit
the papers and the plebs found out.

Medieval and Tudor kings could do pretty much what they wanted on a personal
level. If they announced they were going off on their own for a few hours (or
off with Hastings or his equivalent) then the boys of the entourage would
probably go into nudge and wink mode and have a laugh about the boss being up to
his old tricks again. No one would mind, and even if someone went out of their
way to tell the Queen, the Queen had no redress beyond sulking or shouting.

Medieval and Tudor Queens on the other hand lived surrounded by a host of women
who had an unspoken duty to watch over them. We are not talking about one
friendly maid, but maybe a dozen or twenty females of various ranks. I doubt
even the wisest and gentlest of queens could get all of her entourage so far on
side that they could *all* be relied upon to co-operate or keep quiet. In my
experience women do not need things spelled out in letters three feet high. They
tend to pick up on non-verbal signals, on subtle changes. If the Queen was
having freelance sex her women would know, and at least one of them would talk.
There is also the practical detail of getting to be alone. It would be highly
suspicious for a woman of such high rank to seek privacy. Attendance was part of
her status. Oh, and the Queen had men and boys serving her too. By the score.
She would need to get away from the whole lot.

Of course lovers can be ingenious. But adultery in women was not laughed off.
Consider the fate of the sisters-in-law of Isabella the Fair. One was allegedly
murdered in prison, another died there. A third, the least culpable who did not
actually commit adultery but merely connived in it, was eventually allowed back
to her husband after many years in a nunnery.

At a more humdrum level, in 15th century Norfolk Sir Thomas Tuddenham found his
wife was false to him. He found some cause to 'divorce' her straightaway.
(Adultery was not a cause, hence I say 'found'.) The Pastons had a good laugh at
his expense, but clearly this was not something taken lightly.

To me it is instructive that Edward IV generally preferred widows. Widows were
their own boss. They could tell their women to go away if they liked and no one
could do anything about it. For married women and unmarried girls the double
standard was as alive in the 15th C as it was in the 19th.

Brian W

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> if you start researching genealogy you will find tons of noble born
>illegitimate children. the clergy had illegits. think of the borgia pope. in our
>modern era we have been taught that people of the middle ages were chaste and
>valourious.
>
>  
> what was told to common people was not done among the upper classes.
>homosexuality is also known as the aristrocratic vice. the court of james i,
>of england was from what i'm finding was very open sexually, particularily for
>the males. james himself was called queen james, who inherited the throne from
>king elizabeth. it is said he was homosexual, as it is also implied that francis
>bacon (author of h7's bio) preferred to bed men, rather than women.
>  
> there are rumours that elizabeth i had children and had them killed. there is
>even a myth that she was killed and replaced with a castrated illegitimate son
>of h8.
>  
> consider the codpieces worn in the tudor era. single women went about with one
>or both breasts bare. imagine such fashion sense in our modern era..gasp! it's
>enough to bring the church lady back to saturday night live!
>  
> prior to the protestant reformation, sex was not the huge taboo that it is
>today. the production of an heir and a spare was a necessity for the nobility.
>but, after that it appears to have been anyone's game. the no holds barred in
>bed hopping, was basically a personal preference for these people. 
> there are even 3 classes of bastard.
> 1   ordinary, non church ordained parents
> 2   a member of the church who has taken their vows and an ordinary person
> 3   both parents are members of the church, who have taken their vows.
>  
> illegitimate children, especially those born of nobility were often raised with
>and included in the noble's family.the main problem with being born on the
>wrong side of the blanket was that the child/issue could not inherit. however,
>the parent of the child could settle an estate on the child for that child's
>life time. the mythology was...well bred girls were chaste, and the boys could
>go sow their wild oats. what was taboo or disgusting to these people was to
>"breed" with a lower class.
>  
> i also tend to think of e2 as try-sexual. in other words, he'd try anything
>sexual with anyone.
>  
> also, wikipedia has an interesting write up on chastity belts. basically there
>was no such thing prior to the 15thC. it's all protestant mythology.
>  
> so, in conclusion our purtian value system regarding sex comes from the guy and
>era that gave the vulgar masses the king james bible. and for such a
>"nice" twist of social morals, women were still being locked up in asylums for
>sexual insanity as late as the 1920's. especially, if she came from a "nice"
>family or was impregnated by a cad from the upper classes.
>
>  
> roslyn
>  
> --- On Mon, 2/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Received: Monday, February 14, 2011, 8:22 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry
>VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical
>clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children
>who didn't belong to the King?
>
> Candidates for being cuckolded would be:
>
> the apparently gay Edward II
>
> And the often mad Henry VI.
>
> Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have
>`dumped' their inadequate husbands.
>
> Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and
>Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.
>
> We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital
>or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?
>
> `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



 
 
Silver Stick

Not just any old Saxons, but descendants of the Wessex Royal line of Alfred and Cerdic.

Richard G

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> ii) Even if Matilda and her cousin had slept together (extremely
> unlikely), her maternal descent made her offspring Saxons, which is
> far more important than Plantagenet descent.

Richard III, when Duke of Gloucester appears to have sired several illegitimate children, but is anything known about the women involved?

http://www.r3.org/basics/basic6.html

appears on the subject, but, presumably, the mothers were lower class?


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "vermeertwo" wrote:
>
> > For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?
> >
> > Candidates for being cuckolded would be:
> >
> > the apparently gay Edward II
> >
> > And the often mad Henry VI.
> >
> > Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.
> >
> > Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.
> >
> > We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?
> >
> > `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> We don't know that Richard had any extramarital relationships. In fact, he seems to have been (like Charles the Bold) known for his fidelity to his wife. His two known bastards, Katherine and John, were born before his marriage. Many other English kings and princes (John of Gaunt, for example) were known or suspected to have had mistresses.
>
> As for women, Richard's sister Margaret was suspected of having had an affair with a bishop, just as his mother was accused of having had an affair with an archer named Blaybourne (sp?) that resulted in the firth of her son Edward, and, IIRC, Geoffrey of Anjou suspected that his wife, Maud the Empress, had had an affair with her cousin Stephen of Blount (with whom she later went to war). If so, the first Plantagenet king, Henry II, wasn't a Plantagenet, and neither were any of his descendants. I think we can safely dismiss those rumors as propaganda.
>
> As for Edward II, I suspect that he was bisexual. He probably performed his "duty" to father children, unlike Richard I, who was more interested in war than in women. And I'd like to believe that Henry VI was both impotent and too saintly (or innocent or mentally impaired) to father a child and that Margaret of Anjou was such a dynast that she would result to adultery to produce an heir to the throne, but it's only fair to extend to them the same benefit of a doubt that we extend to Richard.
>
> Carol, who has no interest in watching "The Tudors," which appears to be almost as far from historically accurate as Shakespeare's "history" plays
>

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:

[Snip]

> If the Queen was having freelance sex her women would know, and at least one of them would talk. There is also the practical detail of getting to be alone. It would be highly suspicious for a woman of such high rank to seek privacy. Attendance was part of her status. Oh, and the Queen had men and boys serving her too. By the score. She would need to get away from the whole lot.
>


And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

Katy

In support of your first point, I know people named Bishop, Deakin and
Archdekin.

As for the second point, even for many of the depraved who moved about
in the libertine environments of James and his grandsons, I'm sure that
James was considered to be disgusting. If you've ever seen Penn Teller's
movie 'The Aristocrats', you get a feel for how the upper classes may
well have been viewed right up to the time of George V.

On 14/02/2011 5:06 PM, fayre rose wrote:
>
> if you start researching genealogy you will find tons of noble born
> illegitimate children. the clergy had illegits. think of the borgia
> pope. in our modern era we have been taught that people of the middle
> ages were chaste and valourious.
>
> what was told to common people was not done among the upper classes.
> homosexuality is also known as the aristrocratic vice. the court of
> james i, of england was from what i'm finding was very open sexually,
> particularily for the males. james himself was called queen james, who
> inherited the throne from king elizabeth. it is said he was
> homosexual, as it is also implied that francis bacon (author of h7's
> bio) preferred to bed men, rather than women.
>
> there are rumours that elizabeth i had children and had them killed.
> there is even a myth that she was killed and replaced with a castrated
> illegitimate son of h8.
>
> consider the codpieces worn in the tudor era. single women went about
> with one or both breasts bare. imagine such fashion sense in our
> modern era..gasp! it's enough to bring the church lady back to
> saturday night live!
>
> prior to the protestant reformation, sex was not the huge taboo that
> it is today. the production of an heir and a spare was a necessity for
> the nobility. but, after that it appears to have been anyone's game.
> the no holds barred in bed hopping, was basically a personal
> preference for these people.
> there are even 3 classes of bastard.
> 1 ordinary, non church ordained parents
> 2 a member of the church who has taken their vows and an ordinary person
> 3 both parents are members of the church, who have taken their vows.
>
> illegitimate children, especially those born of nobility were often
> raised with and included in the noble's family.the main problem with
> being born on the wrong side of the blanket was that the child/issue
> could not inherit. however, the parent of the child could settle an
> estate on the child for that child's life time. the mythology
> was...well bred girls were chaste, and the boys could go sow their
> wild oats. what was taboo or disgusting to these people was to "breed"
> with a lower class.
>
> i also tend to think of e2 as try-sexual. in other words, he'd try
> anything sexual with anyone.
>
> also, wikipedia has an interesting write up on chastity belts.
> basically there was no such thing prior to the 15thC. it's all
> protestant mythology.
>
> so, in conclusion our purtian value system regarding sex comes from
> the guy and era that gave the vulgar masses the king james bible. and
> for such a "nice" twist of social morals, women were still being
> locked up in asylums for sexual insanity as late as the 1920's.
> especially, if she came from a "nice" family or was impregnated by a
> cad from the upper classes.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Mon, 2/14/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...
> <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@... <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com>>
> Subject: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Received: Monday, February 14, 2011, 8:22 AM
>
>
>
> For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married
> to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped
> up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some
> queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?
>
> Candidates for being cuckolded would be:
>
> the apparently gay Edward II
>
> And the often mad Henry VI.
>
> Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may
> well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.
>
> Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward
> II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth
> to a son.
>
> We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had
> extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?
>
> `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3443 - Release Date: 02/14/11
>

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
> And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
>
> Katy


Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)

Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!

Brian W

Queen Catherine was rumoured to have had a fling with the Duke of Somerset before she got hitched to Owen Tudor.
 
This might explain why the Tudor line was so readily accepted by the Lancastrian establishment, since it would make Edmund Tudor a Plantagenet, albeit an illegitimate one. 
 
descended of bastard blood both of the father's side and of the mother's side...
 
 

I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem





--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
> And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
>
> Katy

Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)

Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!

Brian W

Is there any proof that Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor were actually
married?

  Considering he had to marry his first cousin or look at foreign princesses to have someone of his actual level, I'd say it is about guaranteed that the mother(s) were at least lower than he.  Various authors have various speculations, but no one knows for sure.  Possibly it was a a noblewoman who attended his mother Cecily. 
Sheffe

--- On Tue, 2/15/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 10:29 AM







 









Richard III, when Duke of Gloucester appears to have sired several illegitimate children, but is anything known about the women involved?



http://www.r3.org/basics/basic6.html



appears on the subject, but, presumably, the mothers were lower class?



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>

> "vermeertwo" wrote:

>

> > For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?

> >

> > Candidates for being cuckolded would be:

> >

> > the apparently gay Edward II

> >

> > And the often mad Henry VI.

> >

> > Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.

> >

> > Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.

> >

> > We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?

> >

> > `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'

> >

> Carol responds:

>

> We don't know that Richard had any extramarital relationships. In fact, he seems to have been (like Charles the Bold) known for his fidelity to his wife. His two known bastards, Katherine and John, were born before his marriage. Many other English kings and princes (John of Gaunt, for example) were known or suspected to have had mistresses.

>

> As for women, Richard's sister Margaret was suspected of having had an affair with a bishop, just as his mother was accused of having had an affair with an archer named Blaybourne (sp?) that resulted in the firth of her son Edward, and, IIRC, Geoffrey of Anjou suspected that his wife, Maud the Empress, had had an affair with her cousin Stephen of Blount (with whom she later went to war). If so, the first Plantagenet king, Henry II, wasn't a Plantagenet, and neither were any of his descendants. I think we can safely dismiss those rumors as propaganda.

>

> As for Edward II, I suspect that he was bisexual. He probably performed his "duty" to father children, unlike Richard I, who was more interested in war than in women. And I'd like to believe that Henry VI was both impotent and too saintly (or innocent or mentally impaired) to father a child and that Margaret of Anjou was such a dynast that she would result to adultery to produce an heir to the throne, but it's only fair to extend to them the same benefit of a doubt that we extend to Richard.

>

> Carol, who has no interest in watching "The Tudors," which appears to be almost as far from historically accurate as Shakespeare's "history" plays

>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Richard III, when Duke of Gloucester appears to have sired several illegitimate children, but is anything known about the women involved?
>
> http://www.r3.org/basics/basic6.html
>
> appears on the subject, but, presumably, the mothers were lower class?



I read ("somewhere", as usual) that Katherine Haute may have been the mother of both of them, and that she was the widow of a knight.

It would be an interesting exercise in research to try to find out more about her, including whether a person by that name actually existed.

Katy

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard III, when Duke of Gloucester appears to have sired several illegitimate children, but is anything known about the women involved?
> >
> > http://www.r3.org/basics/basic6.html
> >
> > appears on the subject, but, presumably, the mothers were lower class?
>
>
>
> I read ("somewhere", as usual) that Katherine Haute may have been the mother of both of them, and that she was the widow of a knight.
>
> It would be an interesting exercise in research to try to find out more about her, including whether a person by that name actually existed.
>
> Katy
>
PS... Maybe this is where I got her name:

http://www.richardiii.net/r3_detail_children.htm

See footnote2.

Katy

Richard's had relationships that produced two children before he got married.
Paul


On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:22, vermeertwo wrote:

>
>
> For those familiar with the affairs of Katherine Howard while married to Henry VIII, as illustrated by the Tudors: soft pornography wrapped up in historical clothing, it does beg the question whether some queens gave birth to children who didn't belong to the King?
>
> Candidates for being cuckolded would be:
>
> the apparently gay Edward II
>
> And the often mad Henry VI.
>
> Both Isabella and Margaret of Anjou seemed fiery type females who may well have `dumped' their inadequate husbands.
>
> Isabella seems to have been instrumental in the cruel death of Edward II and Henry VI seems to have been surprised that Margaret gave birth to a son.
>
> We know that kings like Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VIII had extra-marital or out of marriage relationships, so why not the Queens?
>
>
> `Mother's baby, Father's maybe?'
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

That would have made him a Beaufort, rather than a Plantagenet. Depending on which Duke of Somerset you are referring to, it could also mean that Edmund married his half-sister.

Richard G

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Queen Catherine was rumoured to have had a fling with the Duke of Somerset before she got hitched to Owen Tudor.
>  
> This might explain why the Tudor line was so readily accepted by the Lancastrian establishment, since it would make Edmund Tudor a Plantagenet, albeit an illegitimate one. 
>  
> descended of bastard blood both of the father's side and of the mother's side...
>  
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.


--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)
>
> Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have read that the thinner dresses of the Regency period necessitated such an undergarment for reasons of decency.

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)
>
> Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

here's another hotsie totsie from the era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margaret_of_Scotland

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Received: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM


 



http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)
>
> Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but earlier than the 1800s.
Sheffe

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM







 









http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html



for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.



What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.



According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.



--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

>

> I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Brian

> To:

> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >>

> >

> > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

> >

> > Katy

>

> Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)

>

> Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!

>

> Brian W

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

  I was just reading poetry of the 1700s where the poet refers to his none-too-fastidious sex partner having "unclean linen."  She had panties of some kind, because it was absolutely what he was complaining about.
Sheffe

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM







 









http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html



for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.



What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.



According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.



--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

>

> I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Brian

> To:

> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >>

> >

> > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

> >

> > Katy

>

> Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)

>

> Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!

>

> Brian W

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip, but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.

Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of the 15th and 16th centuries.

Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.

Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.

I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?


--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but earlier than the 1800s.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html
>
>
>
> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.
>
>
>
> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.
>
>
>
> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: Brian
>
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
>
> > >
>
> > > Katy
>
> >
>
> > Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)
>
> >
>
> > Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!
>
> >
>
> > Brian W
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 17 Feb 2011, at 14:35, vermeertwo wrote:

> Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.
>
> Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.
>
> I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?


I personally think this another part of the Tudor myth as there is no evidence of any break in the intimacy Richard and his mother shared all their lives, and she was fully supportive of his claim to the throne.
Paul

http://www.richardiii.net/r3_mother.htm

on this topic.

Polydore Virgil is certainly a suspect source, but maybe Edward IV was illegitimate or it was all made up?

Katherine Howard and others suggest that promiscuity may have been far more rife than we think. The fact that she had a torrid affair with Culpepper while married to a monster like Henry VIII may suggest this. Apart from someone who knew Dereham blabbing about her Promiscuity, it was entirely possible that Katherine could've cuckolded the overweight Henry and foisted a cuckoo onto the Royal family. Was she the only one? I recall a case of a man who had to check the genetic material of his four children and he discovered that only the first was his child; his wife had been playing away….


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2011, at 14:35, vermeertwo wrote:
>
> > Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.
> >
> > Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.
> >
> > I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?
>
>
> I personally think this another part of the Tudor myth as there is no evidence of any break in the intimacy Richard and his mother shared all their lives, and she was fully supportive of his claim to the throne.
> Paul
>

Hi Mary - I see that you are still without a response to your enquiry as to whether there's any proof that Catherine de Valois and Owen Tudor were actually married.

I'm tempted to reflect on matters like the informal and unrecorded nature of 15th-century marriages, and what, in fact, would constitute proof ... However, I think when it came to a person as important as the queen dowager - so important that Parliament made a law governing the circumstances under which she would be permitted to remarry - it is a reasonable question to raise.

I believe the best and most authoritative analysis of what happened has been made by Griffiths and Thomas in "The Making of the Tudor Dynasty", pp. 28-32 (Sutton, 1985/1993), and in case you don't have ready access to this, I relied on their account for my own summary in pages 52-3 of "The Maligned King". On more than one level, a marriage between Owen and Catherine without specific permission would have contravened English civil law, and according to Griffiths & Thomas the exact nature of their relationship remained secret until after Catherine's death, so in order not to degrade the royal family an assumption of marriage had to be made.

However, in the eyes of the Church, as Ricardians well know, a valid marriage existed if two persons who were free to marry decided to plight their troth. And, as Ricardians well know, the problem with a secret marriage was that it usefully concealed the possibility that one or other party might NOT be free to marry. So, once again, it cannot be said with confidence that a valid sacrament took place, because we don't know whether Catherine, or more likely Owen, might not have secretly entered into just such a troth-plight on a previous occasion with someone else. Who, for example, was the allegedly 'mad' woman who paid such tender devotions to Owen after his execution?

My assumption is that Griffiths & Thomas probably unearthed as much as could be found on the subject, so the answer to Mary's question probably has to be "No". I'd be interested to hear whether anyone knows of any other more recent book or article that sheds any further light on the matter.
Regards from Annette, now happily resident in England again, and looking forward to greater research opportunities.

r3's brother george brought those allegations to light in his fight with e4. personally, i believe buckingham made the allegations public again 1483, and this is why richard had his initial  falling out with him. it was okay to cast spurious doubts on his brother's marriage, but not on his mother's reputation. cecily never remarried after the death of her husband. she would have had significantly more freedom personally and financially as a widow/single woman. ergo, it is possible that she was her own woman and would do as she willed...with grace and discretion.
 
now with that said, i do think there is some possible fact to the allegations that cecily did play around on richard of york. both the duchess of bedford, jacquetta and queen catherine had secret marriages...in spite of being swarmed with ladies in waiting. the late 1430's and 1440's appear to be a rather ribald time at court. this includes allegations that margaret of anjou also liked to bed hop.
 
it would be highly unlikely that richard would have said much about his brother's marriage and his mother's activities while the *king* was alive. most sober people like to keep their heads. george had the throne to gain, especially if e4 was not his father's son. richard would not have advanced very much in the line of succession had george been able to remove edward from the throne. george had a son and a daughter living as next heirs. george also was the heir of edward of westminister, so technically he was "king" from not only cecily's indescretion, but also via the lancastrian line.
 
roslyn
 


--- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Received: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM


 



There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip, but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.

Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of the 15th and 16th centuries.

Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.

Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.

I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but earlier than the 1800s.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html
>
>
>
> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.
>
>
>
> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.
>
>
>
> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: Brian
>
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >>
>
> > >
>
> > > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
>
> > >
>
> > > Katy
>
> >
>
> > Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)
>
> >
>
> > Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!
>
> >
>
> > Brian W
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

  We have no actual proof that Richard said anything of the kind.  No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.  A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.  Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM







 









There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip, but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.



Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of the 15th and 16th centuries.



Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.



Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.



I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?



--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

>

> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but earlier than the 1800s.

> Sheffe

>

> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> To:

> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

>

>

>

> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

>

>

>

> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

>

>

>

> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.

>

>

>

> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)

>

> >

>

> > ----- Original Message -----

>

> > From: Brian

>

> > To:

>

> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM

>

> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> > >

>

> > >>

>

> > >

>

> > > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

>

> > >

>

> > > Katy

>

> >

>

> > Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)

>

> >

>

> > Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!

>

> >

>

> > Brian W

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

  The question is not general--do women play around?--but specific: did Cecily have all her children to Richard, Duke of York?  There is no evidence that the children were to anyone but her husband.  Period.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 10:01 AM







 









http://www.richardiii.net/r3_mother.htm



on this topic.



Polydore Virgil is certainly a suspect source, but maybe Edward IV was illegitimate or it was all made up?



Katherine Howard and others suggest that promiscuity may have been far more rife than we think. The fact that she had a torrid affair with Culpepper while married to a monster like Henry VIII may suggest this. Apart from someone who knew Dereham blabbing about her Promiscuity, it was entirely possible that Katherine could've cuckolded the overweight Henry and foisted a cuckoo onto the Royal family. Was she the only one? I recall a case of a man who had to check the genetic material of his four children and he discovered that only the first was his child; his wife had been playing away&.



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

>

>

> On 17 Feb 2011, at 14:35, vermeertwo wrote:

>

> > Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.

> >

> > Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.

> >

> > I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?

>

>

> I personally think this another part of the Tudor myth as there is no evidence of any break in the intimacy Richard and his mother shared all their lives, and she was fully supportive of his claim to the throne.

> Paul

>

Thank you Annette for a very interesting reply, especially the bit about the "mad woman". I always assumed that she was just a mad woman.

I have read your book and thought it was excellent, however I didn't remember the bit about Catherine and Owen's so called marriage. I have actually read "Making of a Tudor Dynasty" but I felt that Ralph Griffiths did not bring out all the reasons for Richard taking the throne including not mentioning Bishop Stillington, if I remember rightly. I branded him as a traditionalist historian at the time so would not have expected to find the answer to my question in his book. I read it when I first became interested in the Wars of the Roses so maybe if I read it again I might be a bit more charitable towards him.

To return to the original subject I have always felt so sorry for Katherine Howard, a lovely young girl in the clutches of a mad old man.

Hope that your opportunities for research lead to another book.

Regards

Mary

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mary - I see that you are still without a response to your enquiry as to whether there's any proof that Catherine de Valois and Owen Tudor were actually married.
>
> I'm tempted to reflect on matters like the informal and unrecorded nature of 15th-century marriages, and what, in fact, would constitute proof ... However, I think when it came to a person as important as the queen dowager - so important that Parliament made a law governing the circumstances under which she would be permitted to remarry - it is a reasonable question to raise.
>
> I believe the best and most authoritative analysis of what happened has been made by Griffiths and Thomas in "The Making of the Tudor Dynasty", pp. 28-32 (Sutton, 1985/1993), and in case you don't have ready access to this, I relied on their account for my own summary in pages 52-3 of "The Maligned King". On more than one level, a marriage between Owen and Catherine without specific permission would have contravened English civil law, and according to Griffiths & Thomas the exact nature of their relationship remained secret until after Catherine's death, so in order not to degrade the royal family an assumption of marriage had to be made.
>
> However, in the eyes of the Church, as Ricardians well know, a valid marriage existed if two persons who were free to marry decided to plight their troth. And, as Ricardians well know, the problem with a secret marriage was that it usefully concealed the possibility that one or other party might NOT be free to marry. So, once again, it cannot be said with confidence that a valid sacrament took place, because we don't know whether Catherine, or more likely Owen, might not have secretly entered into just such a troth-plight on a previous occasion with someone else. Who, for example, was the allegedly 'mad' woman who paid such tender devotions to Owen after his execution?
>
> My assumption is that Griffiths & Thomas probably unearthed as much as could be found on the subject, so the answer to Mary's question probably has to be "No". I'd be interested to hear whether anyone knows of any other more recent book or article that sheds any further light on the matter.
> Regards from Annette, now happily resident in England again, and looking forward to greater research opportunities.
>
>
>
>

If I understand correctly, there was a reference in Shaa's speech
supporting Richard's right to the throne to the effect that "Edward was not
of true Yorkist blood". Since the speech was made during the period the
Council was discussing whether E4's marriage to Dame Eleanor Butler, I have
always presumed the reference to "Edward" was to E4's son and not E4
himself.
As E4 had only recently died, it wouldn't be that unnatural for someone to
mistake the reference to E5 as a reference to E4, especially if the
reference was only "King Edward" and not, say, "His late Majesty, King
Edward". Nor would it be unnatural for the Lancastrians to encourage any
confusion about such a reference.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sheffe" <shethra77@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem


We have no actual proof that Richard said anything of the kind. No man who
wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.
A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less
start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly
have been a family member.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM

















There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip,
but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.



Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of
the 15th and 16th centuries.



Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the
suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.



Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up
Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and
others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.



I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was
alive?



--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

>

> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in
> at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but
> earlier than the 1800s.

> Sheffe

>

> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> To:

> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Â

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

>

>

>

> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was
> Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

>

>

>

> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the
> earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens
> slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non-
> genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

>

>

>

> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers
> sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was
> stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th
> century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise
> why.

>

>

>

> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the
> > way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am
> > trying to be delicate about this;)

>

> >

>

> > ----- Original Message -----

>

> > From: Brian

>

> > To:

>

> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM

>

> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> > >

>

> > >>

>

> > >

>

> > > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two
> > lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't
> > think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a
> > sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again,
> > in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together.
> > The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from
> > several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

>

> > >

>

> > > Katy

>

> >

>

> > Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously
> > underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status
> > female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself
> > having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman
> > in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her
> > arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the
> > back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the
> > re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually
> > prefered low-status roles.)

>

> >

>

> > Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal,
> > though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the
> > fiction reader!

>

> >

>

> > Brian W

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>


























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

Yahoo! Groups Links

You mean "bastard slips shall not take root"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



If I understand correctly, there was a reference in Shaa's speech
supporting Richard's right to the throne to the effect that "Edward was not
of true Yorkist blood". Since the speech was made during the period the
Council was discussing whether E4's marriage to Dame Eleanor Butler, I have
always presumed the reference to "Edward" was to E4's son and not E4
himself.
As E4 had only recently died, it wouldn't be that unnatural for someone to
mistake the reference to E5 as a reference to E4, especially if the
reference was only "King Edward" and not, say, "His late Majesty, King
Edward". Nor would it be unnatural for the Lancastrians to encourage any
confusion about such a reference.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sheffe" <shethra77@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

We have no actual proof that Richard said anything of the kind. No man who
wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.
A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less
start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly
have been a family member.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM

There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip,
but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.

Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of
the 15th and 16th centuries.

Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the
suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.

Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up
Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and
others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.

I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was
alive?

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

>

> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in
> at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but
> earlier than the 1800s.

> Sheffe

>

> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> To:

> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Â

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

>

>

>

> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was
> Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

>

>

>

> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the
> earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens
> slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non-
> genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

>

>

>

> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers
> sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was
> stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th
> century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise
> why.

>

>

>

> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the
> > way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am
> > trying to be delicate about this;)

>

> >

>

> > ----- Original Message -----

>

> > From: Brian

>

> > To:

>

> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM

>

> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> > >

>

> > >>

>

> > >

>

> > > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two
> > lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't
> > think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a
> > sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again,
> > in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together.
> > The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from
> > several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

>

> > >

>

> > > Katy

>

> >

>

> > Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously
> > underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status
> > female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself
> > having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman
> > in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her
> > arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the
> > back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the
> > re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually
> > prefered low-status roles.)

>

> >

>

> > Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal,
> > though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the
> > fiction reader!

>

> >

>

> > Brian W

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well yes, but the Beauforts were bastard Plantagenets in the male line.  Good enough for the Tudors to claim the throne through them.
 
Edmund and Margaret would have been first cousins, quite a common marriage partnership for nobility in this age.

 
I remember reading somewhere that a story was common regarding either Richard Duke of York or his father, that he was really the son of one of Richard II's Holland half-brothers.
Can't find the reference.
 

--- On Wed, 16/2/11, Richard <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:


From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Wednesday, 16 February, 2011, 13:28


 



That would have made him a Beaufort, rather than a Plantagenet. Depending on which Duke of Somerset you are referring to, it could also mean that Edmund married his half-sister.

Richard G

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Queen Catherine was rumoured to have had a fling with the Duke of Somerset before she got hitched to Owen Tudor.
>  
> This might explain why the Tudor line was so readily accepted by the Lancastrian establishment, since it would make Edmund Tudor a Plantagenet, albeit an illegitimate one. 
>  
> descended of bastard blood both of the father's side and of the mother's side...
>  
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>

Vermeertwo:

According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.

Ann:
It's bloomers -- probably closed bloomers, which would have had a waist elastic/drawstring -- that were a late 19th-century invention. Earlier bloomers/pantalettes were "open" with two separate legs tied separately around the waist. Tutankhamun wore socks and underwear, too. From the timing, I wonder if closed bloomers didn't come into fashion somewhat with the modern indoor bathroom? Strict fathers were said to object strenuously to closed bloomers as Immodest -- not MY daughter!

In Katherine Howard's day, she would have worn a shift/chemise under a corset with no bloomers. You can get a sense of the next generation's clothes from this site: http://www.elizabethancostume.net/doll/index.html.

L.P.H.,

Ann

In other words, there was nothing to connect between the legs, which characterises modern underwear, just extra layers of long clothing.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sharp, Ann (GT&D)
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



Vermeertwo:

According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.

Ann:
It's bloomers -- probably closed bloomers, which would have had a waist elastic/drawstring -- that were a late 19th-century invention. Earlier bloomers/pantalettes were "open" with two separate legs tied separately around the waist. Tutankhamun wore socks and underwear, too. From the timing, I wonder if closed bloomers didn't come into fashion somewhat with the modern indoor bathroom? Strict fathers were said to object strenuously to closed bloomers as Immodest -- not MY daughter!

In Katherine Howard's day, she would have worn a shift/chemise under a corset with no bloomers. You can get a sense of the next generation's clothes from this site: http://www.elizabethancostume.net/doll/index.html.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Well said, voice of sense and reason!
Paul

On 17 Feb 2011, at 16:31, Sheffe wrote:

> We have no actual proof that Richard said anything of the kind. No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers. A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip, but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.
>
>
>
> Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of the 15th and 16th centuries.
>
>
>
> Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.
>
>
>
> Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.
>
>
>
> I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?
>
>
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but earlier than the 1800s.
>
>> Sheffe
>
>>
>
>> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
>
>> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>> To:
>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Â
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>
>>
>
>>> From: Brian
>
>>
>
>>> To:
>
>>
>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM
>
>>
>
>>> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>>
>
>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>
>
>>>>
>
>>
>
>>>> And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
>
>>
>
>>>>
>
>>
>
>>>> Katy
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> Brian W
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The question of Edward IV's paternity has of course been discussed at some length since Mike Jones's book centring on the subject came out in 2002 and was taken up enthusiastically by the media. For those who don't know it, the book is "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle",



----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



You mean "bastard slips shall not take root"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

If I understand correctly, there was a reference in Shaa's speech
supporting Richard's right to the throne to the effect that "Edward was not
of true Yorkist blood". Since the speech was made during the period the
Council was discussing whether E4's marriage to Dame Eleanor Butler, I have
always presumed the reference to "Edward" was to E4's son and not E4
himself.
As E4 had only recently died, it wouldn't be that unnatural for someone to
mistake the reference to E5 as a reference to E4, especially if the
reference was only "King Edward" and not, say, "His late Majesty, King
Edward". Nor would it be unnatural for the Lancastrians to encourage any
confusion about such a reference.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sheffe" <shethra77@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

We have no actual proof that Richard said anything of the kind. No man who
wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.
A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less
start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly
have been a family member.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM

There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip,
but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.

Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of
the 15th and 16th centuries.

Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the
suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.

Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up
Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and
others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.

I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was
alive?

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

>

> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in
> at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but
> earlier than the 1800s.

> Sheffe

>

> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> To:

> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Â

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

>

>

>

> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was
> Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

>

>

>

> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the
> earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens
> slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non-
> genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

>

>

>

> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers
> sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was
> stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th
> century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise
> why.

>

>

>

> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the
> > way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am
> > trying to be delicate about this;)

>

> >

>

> > ----- Original Message -----

>

> > From: Brian

>

> > To:

>

> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM

>

> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> > >

>

> > >>

>

> > >

>

> > > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two
> > lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't
> > think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a
> > sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again,
> > in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together.
> > The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from
> > several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

>

> > >

>

> > > Katy

>

> >

>

> > Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously
> > underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status
> > female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself
> > having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman
> > in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her
> > arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the
> > back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the
> > re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually
> > prefered low-status roles.)

>

> >

>

> > Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal,
> > though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the
> > fiction reader!

>

> >

>

> > Brian W

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

On 17 Feb 2011, at 21:30, ricard1an wrote:

> To return to the original subject I have always felt so sorry for Katherine Howard, a lovely young girl in the clutches of a mad old man.


A silly young girl forced into a marriage she didn't want, certainly, but stupid enough not to realise that in a very short time the old man would be dead and she could have immense influence and power. IF only she could keep her knickers on for all but the king, who was probably impotent by then anyway. Stupid not to realise what would happen were she caught committing treason [which her cousin's trumped up charges and trial should have shown her it was] by sleeping with anyone other than the vicious old husband she had married, the man with the ultimate power of life and death. She was stupid, and I am afraid to say, got what she deserved. Wait a year or two and she could have been Mrs Thomas Culpeper.
Paul

Sorry, I'll try that again:
The question of Edward IV's paternity has of course been discussed at some length since Mike Jones's book centring on the subject came out in 2002 and was taken up enthusiastically by the media. For those who don't know it, the book is "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle", published by Tempus. Unfortunately the text of Shaa's address hasn't come down to us, so we have to rely on accounts of it given by third parties, always a minefield. Being a great believer in making up one's own mind, in "Maligned King" I tried to gather together all the accounts I could find in the original sources, which can be found on pages 100-101. They are quite varied, but they do show that the story of Edward IV's bastardy had been quite widely spread.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



You mean "bastard slips shall not take root"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

If I understand correctly, there was a reference in Shaa's speech
supporting Richard's right to the throne to the effect that "Edward was not
of true Yorkist blood". Since the speech was made during the period the
Council was discussing whether E4's marriage to Dame Eleanor Butler, I have
always presumed the reference to "Edward" was to E4's son and not E4
himself.
As E4 had only recently died, it wouldn't be that unnatural for someone to
mistake the reference to E5 as a reference to E4, especially if the
reference was only "King Edward" and not, say, "His late Majesty, King
Edward". Nor would it be unnatural for the Lancastrians to encourage any
confusion about such a reference.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sheffe" <shethra77@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

We have no actual proof that Richard said anything of the kind. No man who
wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.
A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less
start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly
have been a family member.
Sheffe

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM

There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip,
but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.

Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of
the 15th and 16th centuries.

Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the
suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.

Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up
Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and
others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.

I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was
alive?

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

>

> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in
> at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but
> earlier than the 1800s.

> Sheffe

>

> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> To:

> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Â

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

>

>

>

> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was
> Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

>

>

>

> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the
> earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens
> slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non-
> genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

>

>

>

> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers
> sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was
> stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th
> century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise
> why.

>

>

>

> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the
> > way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am
> > trying to be delicate about this;)

>

> >

>

> > ----- Original Message -----

>

> > From: Brian

>

> > To:

>

> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM

>

> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> > >

>

> > >>

>

> > >

>

> > > And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two
> > lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't
> > think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a
> > sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again,
> > in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together.
> > The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from
> > several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

>

> > >

>

> > > Katy

>

> >

>

> > Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously
> > underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status
> > female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself
> > having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman
> > in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her
> > arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the
> > back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the
> > re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually
> > prefered low-status roles.)

>

> >

>

> > Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal,
> > though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the
> > fiction reader!

>

> >

>

> > Brian W

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.

Richard G

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
  No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.  A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.  Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> Sheffe

however, richard and edward's brother george, did exactly that. and as i stated before, i believe buckingham brought the rumour to the forefront, once again...not richard.
 
roslyn

--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Received: Friday, February 18, 2011, 4:06 AM


 



Well said, voice of sense and reason!
Paul

On 17 Feb 2011, at 16:31, Sheffe wrote:

> We have no actual proof that Richard said anything of the kind. No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers. A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip, but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.
>
>
>
> Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of the 15th and 16th centuries.
>
>
>
> Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.
>
>
>
> Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.
>
>
>
> I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?
>
>
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but earlier than the 1800s.
>
>> Sheffe
>
>>
>
>> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
>
>> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>> To:
>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Â
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>
>>
>
>>> From: Brian
>
>>
>
>>> To:
>
>>
>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM
>
>>
>
>>> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>>
>
>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>
>
>>>>
>
>>
>
>>>> And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.
>
>>
>
>>>>
>
>>
>
>>>> Katy
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> Brian W
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"IF only she could keep her knickers on for all but the king"

I agree with your metaphor but think we have established that they didn't literally exist;)

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem




On 17 Feb 2011, at 21:30, ricard1an wrote:

> To return to the original subject I have always felt so sorry for Katherine Howard, a lovely young girl in the clutches of a mad old man.

A silly young girl forced into a marriage she didn't want, certainly, but stupid enough not to realise that in a very short time the old man would be dead and she could have immense influence and power. IF only she could keep her knickers on for all but the king, who was probably impotent by then anyway. Stupid not to realise what would happen were she caught committing treason [which her cousin's trumped up charges and trial should have shown her it was] by sleeping with anyone other than the vicious old husband she had married, the man with the ultimate power of life and death. She was stupid, and I am afraid to say, got what she deserved. Wait a year or two and she could have been Mrs Thomas Culpeper.
Paul

I agree that Katherine Howard was stupid: the Howards suffered from hubris, but I've tremendous sympathy for a relative girl in her late teens married to the gross Henry VIII: judging by his late armour he must've weighed getting on for thirty stone and with his infected leg and the tendency not to bathe in those days: not noted for hygiene, he must've ponged to high heaven. Maybe, Katherine was more naïve than stupid; she didn't realise that jackals around her would betray her through hatred for the Howard family.

It must've been a nightmare with someone like him coming down on the young woman? No wonder she sought escape. You can be married to a king, but as miserable as anyone can be.


--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> "IF only she could keep her knickers on for all but the king"
>
> I agree with your metaphor but think we have established that they didn't literally exist;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 9:13 AM
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2011, at 21:30, ricard1an wrote:
>
> > To return to the original subject I have always felt so sorry for Katherine Howard, a lovely young girl in the clutches of a mad old man.
>
> A silly young girl forced into a marriage she didn't want, certainly, but stupid enough not to realise that in a very short time the old man would be dead and she could have immense influence and power. IF only she could keep her knickers on for all but the king, who was probably impotent by then anyway. Stupid not to realise what would happen were she caught committing treason [which her cousin's trumped up charges and trial should have shown her it was] by sleeping with anyone other than the vicious old husband she had married, the man with the ultimate power of life and death. She was stupid, and I am afraid to say, got what she deserved. Wait a year or two and she could have been Mrs Thomas Culpeper.
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
>   No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.  A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.  Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > Sheffe
>

But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: vermeertwo
Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.

--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers. A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > Sheffe
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undergarment

This is what Wikipedia says, although it doesn't really date the introduction.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sharp, Ann (GT&D)
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



Vermeertwo:

According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.

Ann:
It's bloomers -- probably closed bloomers, which would have had a waist elastic/drawstring -- that were a late 19th-century invention. Earlier bloomers/pantalettes were "open" with two separate legs tied separately around the waist. Tutankhamun wore socks and underwear, too. From the timing, I wonder if closed bloomers didn't come into fashion somewhat with the modern indoor bathroom? Strict fathers were said to object strenuously to closed bloomers as Immodest -- not MY daughter!

In Katherine Howard's day, she would have worn a shift/chemise under a corset with no bloomers. You can get a sense of the next generation's clothes from this site: http://www.elizabethancostume.net/doll/index.html.

L.P.H.,

Ann

It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
Robert Stillington (1420–1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.

He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.

Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.
Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 – 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.



--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vermeertwo
> Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
> It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >
> > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers. A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > Sheffe
> >
>

Another problem for Katherine Howard, apart from her promiscuity, was the fact that she was a Howard: who were pro-catholic; protestant reformers, like Cranmer, were out to bring them down. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was notified of the Dereham liaison with Katherine by a protestant member of the dowager Duchess's of Norfolk's household, he reported them to the King in a letter, provoking an investigation which resulted in the arrests of the dowager Duchess of Norfolk, her stepson Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Culpeper and Queen Catherine herself.

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
> Robert Stillington (1420–1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.
>
> He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.
>
> Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.
> Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 – 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.
>
>
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vermeertwo
> > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> >
> > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers. A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > > Sheffe
> > >
> >
>

May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: vermeertwo
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.

He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.

Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.
Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vermeertwo
> Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
> It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >
> > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > Sheffe
> >
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.



One point -- we have to use the word "betrothal" in its contemporaneous sense. In the modern usage, it is an engagement, a declaration of intent to marry, but a betrothal is not legally binding. In the late Middle Ages a betrothal was as valid as a marriage, and IIRC, a divorce or annulment was necessary to break one. What Edward had with Dame Butler was a marriage. He married her.

A misconception arises, I think, from the use of the word "precontract" in later proceedings. I know I was misled by it. There was no such thing, per se, as a precontract -- some sort of legal status stronger than getting engaged but more binding than an actual marriage. What Edward and Eleanor Butler had was a contract (of marriage) that predated his contract of marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. The important part was the "pre-".
Katy

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.


Lots of assumptions here. I haven't read anything that would make me conclude that Stillington hated Edward IV. My impression of Stillington is that if he had a inclination of temperament, it was in the direction of being a bit meek or non-assertive. He didn't stick his neck out, but when he had to make a stand, he stood with truth and
the law.

I also don't have the impression that Edward IV was a bully. Obese, perhaps, a philanderer quite possibly, but if anything he seems to have been on the bluff hail-fellow-well-met side.

And I would definitely argue against the idea that Gloucester hated Edward. I don't think he even hated George. He advocated strongly for George to Edward after he arrested him, and when he evidently couldn't changed Edward's mind, he left London and returned to the North, as if he wanted no part of Edward's plans.

Katy

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

> A misconception arises, I think, from the use of the word "precontract" in later proceedings. I know I was misled by it. There was no such thing, per se, as a precontract -- some sort of legal status stronger than getting engaged but more binding than an actual marriage.



I meant less binding than an actual marriage. Oops.

Katy

Hi Mary - Yes, Griffiths and Thomas (or "G&T" as I like to call them) do take a traditionalist stance, and there are some factual weaknesses when they get on to Ricardian topics, but their historical research on the Tudor back-story is very valuable. My limited library access while I was in South Africa prevented me from consulting the sources I would have liked to, and I couldn't at the time get hold of another Henry VII biography that supplied this kind of material. I wonder, in fact, whether any such existed. Since then of course there's been the book by Sean Cunningham, which I hope to read soon, and other articles (and probably books) prompted by the quincentenary, so nowadays I guess there's more opportunity to get better acquainted with the lad.
Regards from Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



Thank you Annette for a very interesting reply, especially the bit about the "mad woman". I always assumed that she was just a mad woman.

I have read your book and thought it was excellent, however I didn't remember the bit about Catherine and Owen's so called marriage. I have actually read "Making of a Tudor Dynasty" but I felt that Ralph Griffiths did not bring out all the reasons for Richard taking the throne including not mentioning Bishop Stillington, if I remember rightly. I branded him as a traditionalist historian at the time so would not have expected to find the answer to my question in his book. I read it when I first became interested in the Wars of the Roses so maybe if I read it again I might be a bit more charitable towards him.

To return to the original subject I have always felt so sorry for Katherine Howard, a lovely young girl in the clutches of a mad old man.

Hope that your opportunities for research lead to another book.

Regards

Mary

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mary - I see that you are still without a response to your enquiry as to whether there's any proof that Catherine de Valois and Owen Tudor were actually married.
>
> I'm tempted to reflect on matters like the informal and unrecorded nature of 15th-century marriages, and what, in fact, would constitute proof ... However, I think when it came to a person as important as the queen dowager - so important that Parliament made a law governing the circumstances under which she would be permitted to remarry - it is a reasonable question to raise.
>
> I believe the best and most authoritative analysis of what happened has been made by Griffiths and Thomas in "The Making of the Tudor Dynasty", pp. 28-32 (Sutton, 1985/1993), and in case you don't have ready access to this, I relied on their account for my own summary in pages 52-3 of "The Maligned King". On more than one level, a marriage between Owen and Catherine without specific permission would have contravened English civil law, and according to Griffiths & Thomas the exact nature of their relationship remained secret until after Catherine's death, so in order not to degrade the royal family an assumption of marriage had to be made.
>
> However, in the eyes of the Church, as Ricardians well know, a valid marriage existed if two persons who were free to marry decided to plight their troth. And, as Ricardians well know, the problem with a secret marriage was that it usefully concealed the possibility that one or other party might NOT be free to marry. So, once again, it cannot be said with confidence that a valid sacrament took place, because we don't know whether Catherine, or more likely Owen, might not have secretly entered into just such a troth-plight on a previous occasion with someone else. Who, for example, was the allegedly 'mad' woman who paid such tender devotions to Owen after his execution?
>
> My assumption is that Griffiths & Thomas probably unearthed as much as could be found on the subject, so the answer to Mary's question probably has to be "No". I'd be interested to hear whether anyone knows of any other more recent book or article that sheds any further light on the matter.
> Regards from Annette, now happily resident in England again, and looking forward to greater research opportunities.
>
>
>
>

On 19 Feb 2011, at 15:23, vermeertwo wrote:

> It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.

How so?
Not evident to me. Richard disapproved of his brother's later laziness and lack of morality, but hatred is far too strong a word for disapproval.
Paul

Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?

Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.


--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vermeertwo
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>
>
> It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
> Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.
>
> He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.
>
> Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.
> Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vermeertwo
> > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> >
> > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > > Sheffe
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There was a mixture of historical fact and some fiction in the last episode: why was Katherine depicted nude trying out the block and wetting herself on the scaffold and being shown the heads of her former lovers? This was gratuitous sensationalism.

Incidentally, the use of Wikipedia seems sensible to me on occasions; is there anyone out there who actually believes that there is some pristine truth that we can reach because texts were contemporary? I think it's entirely wrong to treat Richard III as if we are members of a fanzine. Edward IV was the victor of Tewkesbury and Barnet and oversaw numerous executions including that of Clarence later and yet he wasn't a smarmy bully type?

If my brother tried to illegitmize my children to claim the crown I would've hated him and seen it as an outrageous act of hatred and contempt.


--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?
>
> Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: vermeertwo
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> >
> >
> >
> > It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
> > Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.
> >
> > He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.
> >
> > Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.
> > Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.
> >
> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > elena@
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: vermeertwo
> > > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> > >
> > > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > > > Sheffe
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

  Yes, apparently Edmund's mother conceived him with another man (perhaps both sons with different men) and said her husband had "very small private parts."
Sheffe

--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Richard <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:

From: Richard <RSG_Corris@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 5:25 AM







 









I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.



Richard G



--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

>

  No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.  A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.  Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.

> Sheffe

  My bad!  George said a lot of odd things, and clearly had all sorts of mental strangeness going on.   Perhaps I should have said no immediate member of the family in his/her right mind...
Sheffe

--- On Fri, 2/18/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 8:11 AM







 









however, richard and edward's brother george, did exactly that. and as i stated before, i believe buckingham brought the rumour to the forefront, once again...not richard.

 

roslyn



--- On Fri, 2/18/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:



From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>

Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

To:

Received: Friday, February 18, 2011, 4:06 AM



 



Well said, voice of sense and reason!

Paul



On 17 Feb 2011, at 16:31, Sheffe wrote:



> We have no actual proof that Richard said anything of the kind. No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers. A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of. Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.

> Sheffe

>

> --- On Thu, 2/17/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> To:

> Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 9:35 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> There may be confusion between panties or bloomers and an under slip, but classes and areas may've varied in their time of introduction.

>

>

>

> Promiscuity may well have been common amongst upper class men and women of the 15th and 16th centuries.

>

>

>

> Of course Richard III had, apparently, accused his mother of adultery: the suggestion that Edward IV was illegitimate, apart from Edward's children.

>

>

>

> Clearly, there are those who think these claims were bogus to shore up Richard's claim: his mother was apparently upset by the allegation, and others that Edward IV and his mother were both promiscuous.

>

>

>

> I wonder if Richard would've raised these objections while Edward IV was alive?

>

>

>

> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

>

>>

>

>> And if you saw Connections, you heard that underwear pretty much came in at the end of the last round of the plague--not Kathleen's time, but earlier than the 1800s.

>

>> Sheffe

>

>>

>

>> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

>>

>

>> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>

>

>> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

>> To:

>

>> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:24 AM

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> Â

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter13.html

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> for Katherine Howard's love letter to Culpepper: it appears that it was Katherine who was passionate for Culpepper.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> What is interesting is the fact that it was someone blabbing about the earlier Dereham relationship which caused her downfall. So, queens slipping men, other than husbands beneath the clothing and producing non- genetic stock, may've been more common than we think.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> According to an antiques show, where a pair of Queen Victoria's bloomers sold for £4000, such under garments were a 19th century invention: it was stated categorically that women didn't wear such items during the 18th century and before. If they were like Katherine Howard, I can surmise why.

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>> I have also read that one particular undergarment, that would get in the way nowadays, was not in use until at least a century later - I am trying to be delicate about this;)

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>> ----- Original Message -----

>

>>

>

>>> From: Brian

>

>>

>

>>> To:

>

>>

>

>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:14 PM

>

>>

>

>>> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

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

>

>>

>

>>>>

>

>>

>

>>>>>

>

>>

>

>>>>

>

>>

>

>>>> And then there is the matter of the clothing. Henry VIII doubted two lovers who said they had managed to have intercourse because he didn't think they could possibly have gotten out of their clothing to a sufficient state, then back to being perfectly properly dressed again, in anything like the short period of time that they were alone together. The man, maybe, but the women of that rank needed assistance from several maids to get into their elaborate ensembles.

>

>>

>

>>>>

>

>>

>

>>>> Katy

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>> Good point Katy! I find that fiction writers tend to seriously underestimate the difficulty of getting into and out of high status female clothing. When doing crits it's something I often find myself having to mention. (I remember discussing the general point with a woman in replica 15C noble clothing and she assured me she couldn't get her arms above her shoulders, let alone around to the fastenings at the back. Her complaint was that as a 'lady' there was little to do at the re-enactment except pose and look decorative, which was why she actually prefered low-status roles.)

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>> Of course it was possible to have sex with minimum clothes removal, though this takes away much of the fun for the participants and the fiction reader!

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>> Brian W

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>

  My brothers and sisters and myself look quite different from each other because of the variety of family genes that can combine, but one can draw similarities to various aunts, uncles, and grandparents.  Dissimilar-looking brothers and sisters do not automatically mean mama was a wild thing.  We have no record of anyone's accusing Cecily of wandering during her child-bearing years.  All of it seems to come from later on, when the throne was the prize for proving whatever king was on did not belong there. 

  Not that there is any proof ( :) ) but I think Richard was named for his father due to the happy chance of being the first boy to resemble him.  It would seem that Richard of York never doubted, however, that their children were his.
Sheffe

--- On Fri, 2/18/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Friday, February 18, 2011, 10:52 AM







 









It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.



--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:

>

> I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.

>

> Richard G

>

> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:

> >

>   No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.  A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.  Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.

> > Sheffe

>

So is the barrel of malmsey, but hey!  Go for it.
Sheffe

--- On Mon, 2/21/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 9:57 AM







 









Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?



Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.



--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:

>

> May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.

> Regards, Annette

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: vermeertwo

> To:

> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM

> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

>

>

>

> It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.

> Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.

>

> He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.

>

> Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.

> Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.

>

> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:

> >

> > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.

> >

> > Maria

> > elena@

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: vermeertwo

> > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM

> > To:

> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> >

> > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.

> >

> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.

> > >

> > > Richard G

> > >

> > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.

> > > > Sheffe

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

"is there anyone out there who actually believes that there is some
pristine truth that we can reach because texts were contemporary?"



  Not pristine.  More likely to be true.  The best historical evidence
comes from what we can find which was not meant to be historical
evidence.  For example, the survival of wardrobe records indicating that
Richard still thought of his brother's children as important family
members, whether or not they could inherit the throne, was something no
one saved to prove Edward V's continued existence or his uncle's
regard.  It's just there.



  History is a lot of things besides the writing and writhing.  Being
removed from the times means we have to make a greater effort to find
information of the time, because even a year or two changes memory. 

"Edward IV was the victor of Tewkesbury and Barnet and oversaw numerous
executions including that of Clarence later and yet he wasn't a smarmy
bully type?"

  You can be victorious and you can find a need to execute people without the words "smarmy" or "bully" necessarily being applicable.
Sheffe


--- On Mon, 2/21/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 10:15 AM







 









There was a mixture of historical fact and some fiction in the last episode: why was Katherine depicted nude trying out the block and wetting herself on the scaffold and being shown the heads of her former lovers? This was gratuitous sensationalism.



Incidentally, the use of Wikipedia seems sensible to me on occasions; is there anyone out there who actually believes that there is some pristine truth that we can reach because texts were contemporary? I think it's entirely wrong to treat Richard III as if we are members of a fanzine. Edward IV was the victor of Tewkesbury and Barnet and oversaw numerous executions including that of Clarence later and yet he wasn't a smarmy bully type?



If my brother tried to illegitmize my children to claim the crown I would've hated him and seen it as an outrageous act of hatred and contempt.



--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?

>

> Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

>

>

> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:

> >

> > May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.

> > Regards, Annette

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: vermeertwo

> > To:

> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM

> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> >

> >

> >

> > It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.

> > Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.

> >

> > He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.

> >

> > Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.

> > Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.

> >

> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:

> > >

> > > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.

> > >

> > > Maria

> > > elena@

> > >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: vermeertwo

> > > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM

> > > To:

> > > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> > >

> > > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.

> > >

> > > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.

> > > >

> > > > Richard G

> > > >

> > > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.

> > > > > Sheffe

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were still alive?  Would he even have the power to do so?  This suggestion seems ridiculous to me. 



--- On Mon, 2/21/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 8:57 AM


 



Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?

Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vermeertwo
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>
>
> It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
> Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.
>
> He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.
>
> Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.
> Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vermeertwo
> > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> >
> > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > > Sheffe
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You are quite correct to state that execution or other punishment does not impute hostile emotions on a King's part. I wonder whether we are being TROLLED?

----- Original Message -----
From: Sheffe
To:
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem



"is there anyone out there who actually believes that there is some
pristine truth that we can reach because texts were contemporary?"

Not pristine. More likely to be true. The best historical evidence
comes from what we can find which was not meant to be historical
evidence. For example, the survival of wardrobe records indicating that
Richard still thought of his brother's children as important family
members, whether or not they could inherit the throne, was something no
one saved to prove Edward V's continued existence or his uncle's
regard. It's just there.

History is a lot of things besides the writing and writhing. Being
removed from the times means we have to make a greater effort to find
information of the time, because even a year or two changes memory.

"Edward IV was the victor of Tewkesbury and Barnet and oversaw numerous
executions including that of Clarence later and yet he wasn't a smarmy
bully type?"

You can be victorious and you can find a need to execute people without the words "smarmy" or "bully" necessarily being applicable.
Sheffe

--- On Mon, 2/21/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 10:15 AM



There was a mixture of historical fact and some fiction in the last episode: why was Katherine depicted nude trying out the block and wetting herself on the scaffold and being shown the heads of her former lovers? This was gratuitous sensationalism.

Incidentally, the use of Wikipedia seems sensible to me on occasions; is there anyone out there who actually believes that there is some pristine truth that we can reach because texts were contemporary? I think it's entirely wrong to treat Richard III as if we are members of a fanzine. Edward IV was the victor of Tewkesbury and Barnet and oversaw numerous executions including that of Clarence later and yet he wasn't a smarmy bully type?

If my brother tried to illegitmize my children to claim the crown I would've hated him and seen it as an outrageous act of hatred and contempt.

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>

> Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?

>

> Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

>

>

> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:

> >

> > May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.

> > Regards, Annette

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: vermeertwo

> > To:

> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM

> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> >

> >

> >

> > It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.

> > Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.

> >

> > He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.

> >

> > Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.

> > Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.

> >

> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:

> > >

> > > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.

> > >

> > > Maria

> > > elena@

> > >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: vermeertwo

> > > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM

> > > To:

> > > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

> > >

> > > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.

> > >

> > > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.

> > > >

> > > > Richard G

> > > >

> > > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.

> > > > > Sheffe

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

Exactly there would have been no need. I think that before you start laying the blame or making assumptions you have to look at all the evidence. While Morton's nephew destroyed a lot of the evidence some of it has survived. There's no evidence to say that Richard murdered the Princes or that he didn't. There's certainly no evidence that Richard hated Edward. Alison Carson looked at the evidence that was available in her book "The Maligned King" and she thought that Richard did things according to the law of the land at the time. Correct me if I'm wrong Alison, as it is a while since I read your book!

Mary

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were still alive?  Would he even have the power to do so?  This suggestion seems ridiculous to me. 
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 2/21/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 8:57 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?
>
> Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: vermeertwo
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> >
> >
> >
> > It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
> > Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.
> >
> > He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.
> >
> > Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.
> > Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.
> >
> > --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> > >
> > > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.
> > >
> > > Maria
> > > elena@
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: vermeertwo
> > > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> > >
> > > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > > > Sheffe
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were still alive?  Would he even have the power to do so?  This suggestion seems ridiculous to me. 
>


They weren't bastardized, ever. They were bastards to begin with, because their parents' marriage was invalid.

Katy

I agree that Richard behaved according the rule of law. I also believe
he was a real stickler for promoting the good of the commonweal over
all else. In his time there seems to have been a belief that if you
undermined the commonweal in any way, divine intervention would manifest
in the form of chaos: moral, political, etc. I am pretty sure he truly
believed that the princes were bastards, and that rule by one or both of
them would disturb balance of humours in the body politic. This is not
to say that he murdered the princes; it is only to say that he could
not, in conscience, allow them to rule. Schaa puts forward the 'bastard
slips" text in support of Richard's beliefs.

On 21/02/2011 5:28 PM, ricard1an wrote:
>
> Exactly there would have been no need. I think that before you start
> laying the blame or making assumptions you have to look at all the
> evidence. While Morton's nephew destroyed a lot of the evidence some
> of it has survived. There's no evidence to say that Richard murdered
> the Princes or that he didn't. There's certainly no evidence that
> Richard hated Edward. Alison Carson looked at the evidence that was
> available in her book "The Maligned King" and she thought that Richard
> did things according to the law of the land at the time. Correct me if
> I'm wrong Alison, as it is a while since I read your book!
>
> Mary
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Vickie Cook
> <lolettecook@...> wrote:
> >
> > Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were
> still alive? Would he even have the power to do so? This
> suggestion seems ridiculous to me.Â
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 2/21/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 8:57 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his
> order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?
> >
> > Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up
> in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else
> is ridiculous.
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert
> Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that
> George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We
> really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence
> available.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: vermeertwo
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I
> know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with
> Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well
> as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison,
> apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George,
> Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented
> evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was
> invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
> > > Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and
> Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when
> he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington
> was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was
> consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20
> June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was
> restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it
> until 18 June 1473.
> > >
> > > He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory
> at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the
> matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the
> bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York,
> illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became
> involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the
> throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in
> May of 1491.
> > >
> > > Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting
> himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of
> legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to
> his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and
> philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to
> hate Edward.
> > > Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have
> been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is
> a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love
> of women.
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Maria <ejbronte@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't
> all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is
> tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build
> and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily
> was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children
> doesn't surprise me very much.
> > > >
> > > > Maria
> > > > elena@
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: vermeertwo
> > > > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard
> problem
> > > >
> > > > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to
> his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to
> put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour.
> Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it
> seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe
> Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of
> restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most
> and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV,
> Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the
> first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Sheffe <shethra77@>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the
> status of his brothers.Ãf, A sexually wandering mother is nothing
> anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ãf, Whoever
> started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > > > > Sheffe
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3457 - Release Date: 02/21/11
>

  But no one but Stillington, apparently, knew this, and he was not telling until Edward had died.
Sheffe

--- On Mon, 2/21/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 7:00 PM







 













--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:

>

> Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were still alive?  Would he even have the power to do so?  This suggestion seems ridiculous to me. 

>



They weren't bastardized, ever. They were bastards to begin with, because their parents' marriage was invalid.



Katy

But according to Peter Hancock's theory ("Richard III and the Murder in
the Tower"--it's about Hastings' execution), Richard first learned of
the precontract from William Catesby. I think his theory has a lot of
merit. Catesby's father was Talbot's lawyer and might well have known
about the precontract and passed this information onto his son who was
in Hastings employ. Catesby suddenly went from Hastings to supporting
Richard and was extremely well rewarded for his support and it all
seemed to pivot at the time of Hastings execution on June 13, 1483.

(small correction to a previous post, it's Annette Carson who wrote
"Richard III: The Maligned King")

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

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...>
wrote:
>
> Â But no one but Stillington, apparently, knew this, and he was
not telling until Edward had died.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Mon, 2/21/11, oregon_katy oregon_katy@... wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 7:00 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Vickie Cook
lolettecook@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were
still alive? Would he even have the power to do so? This
suggestion seems ridiculous to me.ÂÂ
>
> >
>
>
>
> They weren't bastardized, ever. They were bastards to begin with,
because their parents' marriage was invalid.
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

george tried to bastardise e4's children by spreading the rumour that e4 was not richard of york's son, but that of the unknown blaybourne. moreover, if i correctly recall, geo was also spreading the rumour that e4's marriage to wydevile was bigamous.
 
had richard overtly supported george..it is very likely richard would have been geo's "drinking partner". richard didn't stay at court while e4 ordered and buckingham passed the death sentence on clarence.
 
basically, we don't know what richard thought or knew about the allegations.
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:


From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Received: Monday, February 21, 2011, 4:07 PM


 



Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were still alive?  Would he even have the power to do so?  This suggestion seems ridiculous to me. 

--- On Mon, 2/21/11, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: vermeertwo <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 8:57 AM

 

Clarence tried to undermine Edward IV and had to be executed by his order and you think there wasn't hatred between them?

Gloucester in bastardizing Edwards' children would've also ended up in a barrel of malmsey had Edward been alive. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> May I offer a word of protest at the assertion that Robert Stillington disliked/hated Edward IV, and that 'it is evident' that George of Clarence and Richard of Gloucester also came to hate him? We really cannot safely conclude any such thing from the scant evidence available.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vermeertwo
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
>
>
>
> It's true that there can be unexpected variations with children. I know some people think that Bishop Stillington was involved with Clarence and may've suggested that Edward IV was illegitimate as well as Edwards' children. In 1478 Stillington spent some weeks in prison, apparently as a result of some association with the disgraced George, Duke of Clarence. It's alleged by some that it was he who presented evidence that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid due to Edward's earlier betrothal to Lady Eleanor Talbot.
> Robert Stillington (1420-1491) was Bishop of Bath and Wells and Lord Chancellor of England. Stillington was Archdeacon of Wells when he was made Keeper of the Privy Seal from 1460 to 1467. Stillington was selected as Bishop of Bath and Wells on 30 October 1465 and was consecrated on 16 March 1466. He was appointed Lord Chancellor on 20 June 1467 and held the office until 29 September 1470. He then was restored to office when Edward IV returned to the throne and held it until 18 June 1473.
>
> He was imprisoned again in 1485, shortly after Henry VII's victory at Bosworth. Some say this was due to Stillington's involvement in the matter of Edward IV's bigamy, for the new king needed to reverse the bigamy charges that made his future queen, Elizabeth of York, illegitimate. Some years after Stillington's second release, he became involved in the plot to place the impostor Lambert Simnel on the throne in 1487. He was imprisoned a third time, and died in prison, in May of 1491.
>
> Why Stillington disliked Edward IV and his children, getting himself imprisoned three times, may've been because of the love of legitimacy or was it due to hatred of Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII, because he came over as an obese bully and philanderer? It's evident that both Clarence and Gloucester came to hate Edward.
> Certainly, pre strict Protestantism, moral laxity seems to have been rife: the pope Alexander VI, (1 January 1431 - 18 August 1503) is a good example: his two dominant passions being greed of gold and love of women.
>
> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > But siblings looking different and having varied builds isn't all that unusual: my sister is medium-height and dark; her husband is tall and blond. Their four children are a whole mixed bouquet of build and color. Richard of York was apparently shortish and darkish; Cecily was reportedly tallish and blondish, so the variation of the children doesn't surprise me very much.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vermeertwo
> > Sent: Feb 18, 2011 10:52 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> >
> > It's possible that George so hated Edward IV, who was similar to his grandson Henry VIII for putting on weight and not being able to put his `manly part' away for long, that he started the rumour. Edward, George and Richard appeared quite physically different it seems. According to Jones it may've had some basis in fact. Maybe Cecily suffered from the Katherine Howard problem: a lack of restraint. When you're super rich you've far more options than most and some think it's a waste of an opportunity: example: Edward IV, Katherine Howard and Henry VIII.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I recall that was used as a plot device in an episode of the first series of The Black Adder, which was set in the 1480s.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > No man who wants to appear legitimate himself EVER impugns the status of his brothers.Ã, A sexually wandering mother is nothing anyone would admit to, much less start the rumor of.Ã, Whoever started that messed-up rumor could not possibly have been a family member.
> > > > Sheffe
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

well..now i do need to read that book..
 
i've been sitting on the catesby info for a while. catesby was also involved with ralph boteler of sudeley, in legal proceedings. richard also held sudeley via a land trade with another party. writing from the top of my head, i think francis lovell could also have been "aware" or involved with the knowledge of the precontract to eleanor talbot/boteler prior to e4's death. i'm also investigating if the spanish envoy sasiola knew anything. i'm finding tidbits and snips of info that e4 and isabella of castile had been involved in betrothal negotiations..
 
geez, e4 got around before wydevile hooked him. he even offered himself to the widowed queen of scots. the smart woman said..no!
 
i do know that there were negotiations for e5 to marry isabella's daughter isabella, elder sister of catherine of aragon.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 2/22/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:


From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Received: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 1:40 AM


 



But according to Peter Hancock's theory ("Richard III and the Murder in
the Tower"--it's about Hastings' execution), Richard first learned of
the precontract from William Catesby. I think his theory has a lot of
merit. Catesby's father was Talbot's lawyer and might well have known
about the precontract and passed this information onto his son who was
in Hastings employ. Catesby suddenly went from Hastings to supporting
Richard and was extremely well rewarded for his support and it all
seemed to pivot at the time of Hastings execution on June 13, 1483.

(small correction to a previous post, it's Annette Carson who wrote
"Richard III: The Maligned King")

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

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...>
wrote:
>
> Â But no one but Stillington, apparently, knew this, and he was
not telling until Edward had died.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Mon, 2/21/11, oregon_katy oregon_katy@... wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 7:00 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Vickie Cook
lolettecook@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were
still alive?ÃÂ Would he even have the power to do so?ÃÂ This
suggestion seems ridiculous to me.ÃÂ
>
> >
>
>
>
> They weren't bastardized, ever. They were bastards to begin with,
because their parents' marriage was invalid.
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Fayre Rose and all -- Can you point me to the source about Edward V and Isabel of Castile? From my hazy memory, she was always intended to be married to Portugal; would be interesting to see what matrimonial games were being played with England before 1485. I do know that there was a little quasi-negotiation for Isabel the Catholic for Edward IV, but from the instant she signed her contract with Enrique IV to end Castile's own civil war, she had her eye on Fernando.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: fayre rose
Sent: Feb 22, 2011 8:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem





well..now i do need to read that book..

i've been sitting on the catesby info for a while. catesby was also involved with ralph boteler of sudeley, in legal proceedings. richard also held sudeley via a land trade with another party. writing from the top of my head, i think francis lovell could also have been "aware" or involved with the knowledge of the precontract to eleanor talbot/boteler prior to e4's death. i'm also investigating if the spanish envoy sasiola knew anything. i'm finding tidbits and snips of info that e4 and isabella of castile had been involved in betrothal negotiations..

geez, e4 got around before wydevile hooked him. he even offered himself to the widowed queen of scots. the smart woman said..no!

i do know that there were negotiations for e5 to marry isabella's daughter isabella, elder sister of catherine of aragon.

roslyn

--- On Tue, 2/22/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:

From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Received: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 1:40 AM



But according to Peter Hancock's theory ("Richard III and the Murder in
the Tower"--it's about Hastings' execution), Richard first learned of
the precontract from William Catesby. I think his theory has a lot of
merit. Catesby's father was Talbot's lawyer and might well have known
about the precontract and passed this information onto his son who was
in Hastings employ. Catesby suddenly went from Hastings to supporting
Richard and was extremely well rewarded for his support and it all
seemed to pivot at the time of Hastings execution on June 13, 1483.

(small correction to a previous post, it's Annette Carson who wrote
"Richard III: The Maligned King")

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

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...>
wrote:
>
> Â But no one but Stillington, apparently, knew this, and he was
not telling until Edward had died.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Mon, 2/21/11, oregon_katy oregon_katy@... wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 7:00 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Vickie Cook
lolettecook@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were
still alive?ÃÂ Would he even have the power to do so?ÃÂ This
suggestion seems ridiculous to me.ÃÂ
>
> >
>
>
>
> They weren't bastardized, ever. They were bastards to begin with,
because their parents' marriage was invalid.
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

the english syllabus of rymer's foedera
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924007439221#page/n5/mode/2up
 
March 31, 1477. Power granted to Richard Martin, subdeacon of London and Thomas Langdon to treat for a marriage between Edward prince of Wales to Isabel, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, King and Queen of Castile.
 
the mixed latin and english feodera is on google books. foedera are documents compiled by thomas rymer. they all deal with foreign negotiations. e4 was busy with his kids.. katherine, anne, cecily and elizabeth and perhaps more were all promised to foreign nobility. cecily was actually married by proxy to heir to the scots throne. the king of scots ended that marriage/betrothal in oct. 1482..just months before the french renegged on elizabeth's betrothal to the dauphin.  most of these betrothals/plans for marriage occur from about 1474 through to 1482.
 
i found the syllabus..and then found the latin/english one. i've been ploughing through the latin one rough-handedly. some doc.s are in english, most are latin. the syallbus gives you the general gist of what occurred. the latin/english one definitely provides more detail. i'm finding whole lists of names, etc who were active in and around the english court.
 
the correct title for foedera on google is:
Foedera, conventiones, literae, et cujuscumque generis acta publica inter ...  By Thomas Rymer


--- On Tue, 2/22/11, Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:


From: Maria <ejbronte@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To: ,
Received: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 9:05 AM


 



Hi Fayre Rose and all -- Can you point me to the source about Edward V and Isabel of Castile? From my hazy memory, she was always intended to be married to Portugal; would be interesting to see what matrimonial games were being played with England before 1485. I do know that there was a little quasi-negotiation for Isabel the Catholic for Edward IV, but from the instant she signed her contract with Enrique IV to end Castile's own civil war, she had her eye on Fernando.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From: fayre rose
Sent: Feb 22, 2011 8:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem

well..now i do need to read that book..

i've been sitting on the catesby info for a while. catesby was also involved with ralph boteler of sudeley, in legal proceedings. richard also held sudeley via a land trade with another party. writing from the top of my head, i think francis lovell could also have been "aware" or involved with the knowledge of the precontract to eleanor talbot/boteler prior to e4's death. i'm also investigating if the spanish envoy sasiola knew anything. i'm finding tidbits and snips of info that e4 and isabella of castile had been involved in betrothal negotiations..

geez, e4 got around before wydevile hooked him. he even offered himself to the widowed queen of scots. the smart woman said..no!

i do know that there were negotiations for e5 to marry isabella's daughter isabella, elder sister of catherine of aragon.

roslyn

--- On Tue, 2/22/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:

From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
To:
Received: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 1:40 AM

But according to Peter Hancock's theory ("Richard III and the Murder in
the Tower"--it's about Hastings' execution), Richard first learned of
the precontract from William Catesby. I think his theory has a lot of
merit. Catesby's father was Talbot's lawyer and might well have known
about the precontract and passed this information onto his son who was
in Hastings employ. Catesby suddenly went from Hastings to supporting
Richard and was extremely well rewarded for his support and it all
seemed to pivot at the time of Hastings execution on June 13, 1483.

(small correction to a previous post, it's Annette Carson who wrote
"Richard III: The Maligned King")

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

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...>
wrote:
>
> Â But no one but Stillington, apparently, knew this, and he was
not telling until Edward had died.
> Sheffe
>
> --- On Mon, 2/21/11, oregon_katy oregon_katy@... wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> Subject: Re: The Katherine Howard problem
> To:
> Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 7:00 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Vickie Cook
lolettecook@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Why would Richard have bastardized Edward's children if Edward were
still alive?ÃÂ Would he even have the power to do so?ÃÂ This
suggestion seems ridiculous to me.ÃÂ
>
> >
>
>
>
> They weren't bastardized, ever. They were bastards to begin with,
because their parents' marriage was invalid.
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>