Richard's Baptismal Records

This is just a guess but if Richard was a small and sickly baby, he may have been baptised immediatety or shortly after birth with only the birth attendents as witnesses. It was a practice of th Church to do that if there was a chance the child would die rather than live. Once babtism is performed in the Catholic Church, it cannot be done again since it is a sacrament that is conferred only once. So Richard may not have had a church baptism at all. It was more important to save the soul of the child with a quick baptism.

L.M.L.,
Janet T.

I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less than
any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most vulnerable
and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth. So, my
guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after the
birth as was possible.

There's an interesting article regarding Polydore Vergil on the American
Branch website: In Defense of the Angelica Historia and Polydore Vergil
by Johanna Stewart <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydor3.html> where
Stewart disputes Vergil's mass destruction of extant documents. Bottom
line, just because we don't like what Vergil wrote is not grounds for
dismissing it.

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 , "J. T," <treenbagh@...>
wrote:
>
> This is just a guess but if Richard was a small and sickly baby,
he may have been baptised immediatety or shortly after birth with only
the birth attendents as witnesses. It was a practice of th Church to do
that if there was a chance the child would die rather than live. Once
babtism is performed in the Catholic Church, it cannot be done again
since it is a sacrament that is conferred only once. So Richard may not
have had a church baptism at all. It was more important to save the
soul of the child with a quick baptism.
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>

Good thought!!!



________________________________
From: "J. T," <treenbagh@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 1:24:01 PM
Subject: Richard's Baptismal Records


This is just a guess but if Richard was a small and sickly baby, he may have
been baptised immediatety or shortly after birth with only the birth attendents
as witnesses. It was a practice of th Church to do that if there was a chance
the child would die rather than live. Once babtism is performed in the Catholic
Church, it cannot be done again since it is a sacrament that is conferred only
once. So Richard may not have had a church baptism at all. It was more
important to save the soul of the child with a quick baptism.

L.M.L.,
Janet T.

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less than
> any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most vulnerable
> and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth. So, my
> guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after the
> birth as was possible.

> Joan

Something else supporting Joan's thought is that, with a few known exceptions, if we find a name for a child in the records, that child was born alive, though it may have lived only minutes. Cecily and the Duke had a number of children for whom we have only the name -- Henry, William, John, Thomas, Ursula, plus the possibly non-existent Joan. It may be that they were short-lived babes, quickly baptised.

I couldn't remember all the names of Cecily's children...in looking it up I found this entry online

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/p/cecily_neville.htm

which states that William, John, Thomas and Ursula lived several years. I've never seen that information anywhere else. Anyone know where it may have come from?

Katy

Does Ms. Stewart disprove all the complaints by Oxford et al.? I will accept
these reclamations with a grain of salt. Henry told the "libraries" to take a
long walk off a short pier, write if you find work, etc.

We do know vast numbers of items lent to Vergil never resurfaced. Some went to
Rome, but my contact at Specola Vaticano says they're not in a cardboard box in
the basements of any Roman churches he knows of. Their exact fate remains
academic (i.e, moot) as to buried, burned, torn up for souvenirs : )

I do not much like the Second Continuator of Crowland, but sometimes we accept
what he says (it appears) and sometimes we don't.

Query: Where does the suggestion that John Russell was 2nd Cont. originate? Old
folks long to know.

Judy



________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 1:55:54 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records


I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less than
any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most vulnerable
and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth. So, my
guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after the
birth as was possible.

There's an interesting article regarding Polydore Vergil on the American
Branch website: In Defense of the Angelica Historia and Polydore Vergil
by Johanna Stewart <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydor3.html> where
Stewart disputes Vergil's mass destruction of extant documents. Bottom
line, just because we don't like what Vergil wrote is not grounds for
dismissing it.

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 , "J. T," <treenbagh@...>
wrote:
>
> This is just a guess but if Richard was a small and sickly baby,
he may have been baptised immediatety or shortly after birth with only
the birth attendents as witnesses. It was a practice of th Church to do
that if there was a chance the child would die rather than live. Once
babtism is performed in the Catholic Church, it cannot be done again
since it is a sacrament that is conferred only once. So Richard may not
have had a church baptism at all. It was more important to save the
soul of the child with a quick baptism.
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>

Here's a list of Cecily's children at Hull
<http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal00989> . Joan
is included and according to this site, she was Cecily's first.

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 , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less
than
> > any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most
vulnerable
> > and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth.
So, my
> > guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after
the
> > birth as was possible.
>
> > Joan
>
> Something else supporting Joan's thought is that, with a few known
exceptions, if we find a name for a child in the records, that child was
born alive, though it may have lived only minutes. Cecily and the Duke
had a number of children for whom we have only the name -- Henry,
William, John, Thomas, Ursula, plus the possibly non-existent Joan. It
may be that they were short-lived babes, quickly baptised.
>
> I couldn't remember all the names of Cecily's children...in looking it
up I found this entry online
>
>
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/p/cecily_neville.htm
>
> which states that William, John, Thomas and Ursula lived several
years. I've never seen that information anywhere else. Anyone know
where it may have come from?
>
> Katy
>

The only quasi-corroborative evidence concerning Richard's early health (I know
of) remains that line in the song about his family. It assures that "Richard
liveth yet," while poor little Ursula, born months later, did not survive. The
"yet" may, of course, mean nothing, but in context it suggests a past or ongoing
question of full viability.

Also, may it be put on record, I've no personal animosity toward Senore Dottore
Vergilio (?). My conclusions are based merely on the bickering that seemed to be
going on between Oxford U. and Henry7. There are always (and ever shall be)
gored oxen and personal agenda. If I misinterpreted these bits, it wasn't
intentional.

I'd still love the definitive answer: Why do so many writers say John Russell
was the 2nd Continuator of Crowland? Opinions (unless based upon graphological
evidence, etc.), are insufficient. Guilt by association is not enough.

The 2nd Continuator was a cranky, humourless gossip, unfit for any critical
position, much less Chancellor; yet Russell was entrusted so thoroughly and
continuously, I'd have to conclude the king was an even worse judge of people
than other evidence suggests.

R's contact with Buckingham was brief, and the king acted in haste. We're all
guilty of these impulsive choices, from time to time. But Chancellor Russell was
something of an accepted given, reign to reign. With Seal in hand, he could have
betrayed Richard at any number of points. And remember, the king had only
oblique jurisdiction over prelates, etc. (Henry II vs. Thomas a Becket would be
cited, if this were a legal proceeding...). Even passive-aggression doesn't
quite convince me.

Cheers!
Judy

Some poor choices, today, result in an un-coveted Darwin Award...Richard got
lucky, during that round with Harry. Buckingham was a Bantam weight, and he was
greedy right to the end. Like Clarence, he seemed to believe he could talk his
way out of anything.





________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 1:55:54 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records


I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less than
any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most vulnerable
and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth. So, my
guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after the
birth as was possible.

There's an interesting article regarding Polydore Vergil on the American
Branch website: In Defense of the Angelica Historia and Polydore Vergil
by Johanna Stewart <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydor3.html> where
Stewart disputes Vergil's mass destruction of extant documents. Bottom
line, just because we don't like what Vergil wrote is not grounds for
dismissing it.

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 , "J. T," <treenbagh@...>
wrote:
>
> This is just a guess but if Richard was a small and sickly baby,
he may have been baptised immediatety or shortly after birth with only
the birth attendents as witnesses. It was a practice of th Church to do
that if there was a chance the child would die rather than live. Once
babtism is performed in the Catholic Church, it cannot be done again
since it is a sacrament that is conferred only once. So Richard may not
have had a church baptism at all. It was more important to save the
soul of the child with a quick baptism.
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>

Three years 'til Ursula is more "months" than I remembered, off-hand : )

The song suggests, if not confirms, some concern into his 2nd-3rd year of life.


----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To:
Cc: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 4:35:51 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records




The only quasi-corroborative evidence concerning Richard's early health (I know
of) remains that line in the song about his family. It assures that "Richard
liveth yet," while poor little Ursula, born months later, did not survive. The
"yet" may, of course, mean nothing, but in context it suggests a past or ongoing

question of full viability.

Also, may it be put on record, I've no personal animosity toward Senore Dottore
Vergilio (?). My conclusions are based merely on the bickering that seemed to be

going on between Oxford U. and Henry7. There are always (and ever shall be)
gored oxen and personal agenda. If I misinterpreted these bits, it wasn't
intentional.

I'd still love the definitive answer: Why do so many writers say John Russell
was the 2nd Continuator of Crowland? Opinions (unless based upon graphological
evidence, etc.), are insufficient. Guilt by association is not enough.

The 2nd Continuator was a cranky, humourless gossip, unfit for any critical
position, much less Chancellor; yet Russell was entrusted so thoroughly and
continuously, I'd have to conclude the king was an even worse judge of people
than other evidence suggests.

R's contact with Buckingham was brief, and the king acted in haste. We're all
guilty of these impulsive choices, from time to time. But Chancellor Russell was

something of an accepted given, reign to reign. With Seal in hand, he could have

betrayed Richard at any number of points. And remember, the king had only
oblique jurisdiction over prelates, etc. (Henry II vs. Thomas a Becket would be
cited, if this were a legal proceeding...). Even passive-aggression doesn't
quite convince me.

Cheers!
Judy

Some poor choices, today, result in an un-coveted Darwin Award...Richard got
lucky, during that round with Harry. Buckingham was a Bantam weight, and he was
greedy right to the end. Like Clarence, he seemed to believe he could talk his
way out of anything.

________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 1:55:54 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records

I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less than
any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most vulnerable
and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth. So, my
guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after the
birth as was possible.

There's an interesting article regarding Polydore Vergil on the American
Branch website: In Defense of the Angelica Historia and Polydore Vergil
by Johanna Stewart <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydor3.html> where
Stewart disputes Vergil's mass destruction of extant documents. Bottom
line, just because we don't like what Vergil wrote is not grounds for
dismissing it.

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 , "J. T," <treenbagh@...>
wrote:
>
> This is just a guess but if Richard was a small and sickly baby,
he may have been baptised immediatety or shortly after birth with only
the birth attendents as witnesses. It was a practice of th Church to do
that if there was a chance the child would die rather than live. Once
babtism is performed in the Catholic Church, it cannot be done again
since it is a sacrament that is conferred only once. So Richard may not
have had a church baptism at all. It was more important to save the
soul of the child with a quick baptism.
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet T.
>

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>

> I'd still love the definitive answer: Why do so many writers say John Russell
> was the 2nd Continuator of Crowland? Opinions (unless based upon graphological
> evidence, etc.), are insufficient. Guilt by association is not enough.


I don't have any definitive answer, but perhaps it's because the Second Continuator brags that he was present at the deathbed of Cardinal Bourchier, and Russell was there. Of course, there are several shades of being "present" between sitting at the Cardinal's bedside and being one of the entourage of the more important men of the church, standing around in the hall or present somewhere in the same building or complex.

Katy

Exactly, Katy. I know a man who was "there," as a boy, when JFK was
assassinated. I know many people who claim they were at Woodstock...but only one
still has his ticket stubs, etc.

Judy



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 5:46:10 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records




--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>

> I'd still love the definitive answer: Why do so many writers say John Russell
> was the 2nd Continuator of Crowland? Opinions (unless based upon graphological

> evidence, etc.), are insufficient. Guilt by association is not enough.

I don't have any definitive answer, but perhaps it's because the Second
Continuator brags that he was present at the deathbed of Cardinal Bourchier, and
Russell was there. Of course, there are several shades of being "present"
between sitting at the Cardinal's bedside and being one of the entourage of the
more important men of the church, standing around in the hall or present
somewhere in the same building or complex.

Katy

I wouldn't put too much weight to "Richard liveth yet" as Susan
Higginbotham discovered that this has more to do with his legal status
than his health, IIRC.

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 , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Three years 'til Ursula is more "months" than I remembered, off-hand :
)
>
> The song suggests, if not confirms, some concern into his 2nd-3rd year
of life.
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...
> To:
> Cc: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...
> Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 4:35:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Baptismal
Records
>
>
>
>
> The only quasi-corroborative evidence concerning Richard's early
health (I know
> of) remains that line in the song about his family. It assures that
"Richard
> liveth yet," while poor little Ursula, born months later, did not
survive. The
> "yet" may, of course, mean nothing, but in context it suggests a past
or ongoing
>
> question of full viability.
>
> Also, may it be put on record, I've no personal animosity toward
Senore Dottore
> Vergilio (?). My conclusions are based merely on the bickering that
seemed to be
>
> going on between Oxford U. and Henry7. There are always (and ever
shall be)
> gored oxen and personal agenda. If I misinterpreted these bits, it
wasn't
> intentional.
>
> I'd still love the definitive answer: Why do so many writers say John
Russell
> was the 2nd Continuator of Crowland? Opinions (unless based upon
graphological
> evidence, etc.), are insufficient. Guilt by association is not enough.
>
> The 2nd Continuator was a cranky, humourless gossip, unfit for any
critical
> position, much less Chancellor; yet Russell was entrusted so
thoroughly and
> continuously, I'd have to conclude the king was an even worse judge of
people
> than other evidence suggests.
>
> R's contact with Buckingham was brief, and the king acted in haste.
We're all
> guilty of these impulsive choices, from time to time. But Chancellor
Russell was
>
> something of an accepted given, reign to reign. With Seal in hand, he
could have
>
> betrayed Richard at any number of points. And remember, the king had
only
> oblique jurisdiction over prelates, etc. (Henry II vs. Thomas a Becket
would be
> cited, if this were a legal proceeding...). Even passive-aggression
doesn't
> quite convince me.
>
> Cheers!
> Judy
>
> Some poor choices, today, result in an un-coveted Darwin
Award...Richard got
> lucky, during that round with Harry. Buckingham was a Bantam weight,
and he was
> greedy right to the end. Like Clarence, he seemed to believe he could
talk his
> way out of anything.
>
> ________________________________
> From: joanszechtman u2nohoo@...
> To:
> Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 1:55:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records
>
> I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less
than
> any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most
vulnerable
> and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth. So,
my
> guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after the
> birth as was possible.
>
> There's an interesting article regarding Polydore Vergil on the
American
> Branch website: In Defense of the Angelica Historia and Polydore
Vergil
> by Johanna Stewart <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydor3.html> where
> Stewart disputes Vergil's mass destruction of extant documents. Bottom
> line, just because we don't like what Vergil wrote is not grounds for
> dismissing it.
>
> 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 , "J. T," treenbagh@
> wrote:
> >
> > This is just a guess but if Richard was a small and sickly baby,
> he may have been baptised immediatety or shortly after birth with only
> the birth attendents as witnesses. It was a practice of th Church to
do
> that if there was a chance the child would die rather than live. Once
> babtism is performed in the Catholic Church, it cannot be done again
> since it is a sacrament that is conferred only once. So Richard may
not
> have had a church baptism at all. It was more important to save the
> soul of the child with a quick baptism.
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> > Janet T.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi again,

The baby Joan is driving me mad I have to admit. She doesn't appear in any of the early sources, historians don't mention her in their books, and I don't for one minute think she existed although I agree she's all over the internet now. There was a discussion aout York's children on the forum a few years back, and it looked to me as though all the references to baby Joan were referencing Alison Weir's royal genealogy book - I make no comment.
The Clare Roll has Anne, Henry, Edward, Edmund, Elizabeth, Margaret, William, John, George, Thomas, Richard and Ursula.
William Worcester has Anne, Henry, Edward, Edmund, Elizabeth, Margaret, William, John, George, Richard and Ursula (no Thomas).
Worcester specifically refers to Elizabeth as York's second daughter; okay, he could have meant second surviving except that he calls Henry, not Edward, York's first son.

To pick up on Edward's godparents - didn't work out that well, unfortunately. We need to remember he was born before York's split with the court, and anyway York was limited to whoever was available in Rouen unless he wanted to go to a lot of trouble arranging proxy godparents. Thomas, Lord Scales, was a hard-bitten veteran of the French wars. He didn't side with York later on, and was one of those who held the Tower of London for the Lancastrians in 1460. He attempted to escape by night but was recognised by the Thames boatmen, who killed and stripped him and left his body, "naked as a worm", on the watersteps belonging to the church of St Mary Overy in Southwark (now Southwark cathedral). Lady Say was already in her fifties when she became Edward's godmother, and married to her third husband, Sir John Montgomery; when he became king Edward had Montgomery executed for complicity in the supposed treason of the Earl of Oxford.

Marie



--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a list of Cecily's children at Hull
> <http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal00989> . Joan
> is included and according to this site, she was Cecily's first.
>
> 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 , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less
> than
> > > any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most
> vulnerable
> > > and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth.
> So, my
> > > guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after
> the
> > > birth as was possible.
> >
> > > Joan
> >
> > Something else supporting Joan's thought is that, with a few known
> exceptions, if we find a name for a child in the records, that child was
> born alive, though it may have lived only minutes. Cecily and the Duke
> had a number of children for whom we have only the name -- Henry,
> William, John, Thomas, Ursula, plus the possibly non-existent Joan. It
> may be that they were short-lived babes, quickly baptised.
> >
> > I couldn't remember all the names of Cecily's children...in looking it
> up I found this entry online
> >
> >
> http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/p/cecily_neville.htm
> >
> > which states that William, John, Thomas and Ursula lived several
> years. I've never seen that information anywhere else. Anyone know
> where it may have come from?
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I did devote a blog post to this subject, but it's Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs who first pointed out the fallacy of assuming that the "Richard Liveth Yet" comment was a reference to little Richard's precarious health. They discussed the subject at length in a June 1992 Ricardian article entitled, "'Richard Liveth Yet': An Old Myth."

The comment appears in this context:

"Sir, aftir the tyme of longe bareynesse,
God first sent Anne, which signifyeth grace,
In token that at her hertis hevynesse
He as for bareynesse would fro hem chace.
Harry, Edward, and Edmonde, eche is his place
Succcedid; and after tweyn doughters cam
Elizabeth and Margarete, and aftir William.

"John aftir William nexte borne was,
Whiche bothe he passid to Goddis grace:
George was next, and after Thomas
Borne was, which sone aftir did pace
By the pathe of dethe into the heavenly place.
Richard liveth yet; but the last of alle
Was Ursula, to him God list calle."

Earlier in the rhyme, Richard, Duke of York himself is spoken of as "Richard which yet liveth," not as a comment on his health but simply to contrast him with his dead ancestors.

Personally, I'm not surprised we know so little about the circumstances of Richard's christening. He was the fourth living son of a duke; no one expected him to become king at the time.

Susan Higginbotham

http://susandhigginbotham.blogspot.com/2009/12/richard-iii-sickly-child.html

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't put too much weight to "Richard liveth yet" as Susan
> Higginbotham discovered that this has more to do with his legal status
> than his health, IIRC.
>
> 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
>
> ---

I don't give it much weight as serious history, though whole histories have been
spun on less; for my own purposes, I feel pretty laissez faire about
interpretions, within the Wiggle Room. It might fit in The Broome Closet, so to
speak : )

Anyone for a free paperback copy of The Art of Courtly Love by Andreas
Capellanus??? Meet me Off Forum, first come, first served.... If the post is in
the US, I'll pay it; overseas, I may ask for a wee favor, like some pretty
cancelled stamps I can use for collage purposes : D

Judy



________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 7:33:52 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records


I wouldn't put too much weight to "Richard liveth yet" as Susan
Higginbotham discovered that this has more to do with his legal status
than his health, IIRC.

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 , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Three years 'til Ursula is more "months" than I remembered, off-hand :
)
>
> The song suggests, if not confirms, some concern into his 2nd-3rd year
of life.
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...
> To:
> Cc: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...
> Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 4:35:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Baptismal
Records
>
>
>
>
> The only quasi-corroborative evidence concerning Richard's early
health (I know
> of) remains that line in the song about his family. It assures that
"Richard
> liveth yet," while poor little Ursula, born months later, did not
survive. The
> "yet" may, of course, mean nothing, but in context it suggests a past
or ongoing
>
> question of full viability.
>
> Also, may it be put on record, I've no personal animosity toward
Senore Dottore
> Vergilio (?). My conclusions are based merely on the bickering that
seemed to be
>
> going on between Oxford U. and Henry7. There are always (and ever
shall be)
> gored oxen and personal agenda. If I misinterpreted these bits, it
wasn't
> intentional.
>
> I'd still love the definitive answer: Why do so many writers say John
Russell
> was the 2nd Continuator of Crowland? Opinions (unless based upon
graphological
> evidence, etc.), are insufficient. Guilt by association is not enough.
>
> The 2nd Continuator was a cranky, humourless gossip, unfit for any
critical
> position, much less Chancellor; yet Russell was entrusted so
thoroughly and
> continuously, I'd have to conclude the king was an even worse judge of
people
> than other evidence suggests.
>
> R's contact with Buckingham was brief, and the king acted in haste.
We're all
> guilty of these impulsive choices, from time to time. But Chancellor
Russell was
>
> something of an accepted given, reign to reign. With Seal in hand, he
could have
>
> betrayed Richard at any number of points. And remember, the king had
only
> oblique jurisdiction over prelates, etc. (Henry II vs. Thomas a Becket
would be
> cited, if this were a legal proceeding...). Even passive-aggression
doesn't
> quite convince me.
>
> Cheers!
> Judy
>
> Some poor choices, today, result in an un-coveted Darwin
Award...Richard got
> lucky, during that round with Harry. Buckingham was a Bantam weight,
and he was
> greedy right to the end. Like Clarence, he seemed to believe he could
talk his
> way out of anything.
>
> ________________________________
> From: joanszechtman u2nohoo@...
> To:
> Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 1:55:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records
>
> I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less
than
> any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most
vulnerable
> and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth. So,
my
> guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after the
> birth as was possible.
>
> There's an interesting article regarding Polydore Vergil on the
American
> Branch website: In Defense of the Angelica Historia and Polydore
Vergil
> by Johanna Stewart <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydor3.html> where
> Stewart disputes Vergil's mass destruction of extant documents. Bottom
> line, just because we don't like what Vergil wrote is not grounds for
> dismissing it.
>
> 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 , "J. T," treenbagh@
> wrote:
> >
> > This is just a guess but if Richard was a small and sickly baby,
> he may have been baptised immediatety or shortly after birth with only
> the birth attendents as witnesses. It was a practice of th Church to
do
> that if there was a chance the child would die rather than live. Once
> babtism is performed in the Catholic Church, it cannot be done again
> since it is a sacrament that is conferred only once. So Richard may
not
> have had a church baptism at all. It was more important to save the
> soul of the child with a quick baptism.
> >
> > L.M.L.,
> > Janet T.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Susan! Haven't gotten a Register for years. But have signed back up.

My shakiest moment, recently, came with R. Horrox' Study in Service. I had the
1st Ed., and a friend pointed out a significant (for my purposes) change in the
2nd Ed. A single footnote can crash an idea in 60 seconds; I did recover, by
some fancy footwork, but it took a few days.

Cheers!
Judy



________________________________
From: Susan <shigginbotham2@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 7:57:57 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records


I did devote a blog post to this subject, but it's Anne Sutton and Livia
Visser-Fuchs who first pointed out the fallacy of assuming that the "Richard
Liveth Yet" comment was a reference to little Richard's precarious health. They
discussed the subject at length in a June 1992 Ricardian article entitled,
"'Richard Liveth Yet': An Old Myth."

The comment appears in this context:

"Sir, aftir the tyme of longe bareynesse,
God first sent Anne, which signifyeth grace,
In token that at her hertis hevynesse
He as for bareynesse would fro hem chace.
Harry, Edward, and Edmonde, eche is his place
Succcedid; and after tweyn doughters cam
Elizabeth and Margarete, and aftir William.

"John aftir William nexte borne was,
Whiche bothe he passid to Goddis grace:
George was next, and after Thomas
Borne was, which sone aftir did pace
By the pathe of dethe into the heavenly place.
Richard liveth yet; but the last of alle
Was Ursula, to him God list calle."

Earlier in the rhyme, Richard, Duke of York himself is spoken of as "Richard
which yet liveth," not as a comment on his health but simply to contrast him
with his dead ancestors.

Personally, I'm not surprised we know so little about the circumstances of
Richard's christening. He was the fourth living son of a duke; no one expected
him to become king at the time.

Susan Higginbotham

http://susandhigginbotham.blogspot.com/2009/12/richard-iii-sickly-child.html

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...>
wrote:
>
> I wouldn't put too much weight to "Richard liveth yet" as Susan
> Higginbotham discovered that this has more to do with his legal status
> than his health, IIRC.
>
> 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
>
> ---

use hull with extreme caution. the creator was building a data base, not a verified genealogical source.
 
also, use rootsweb and ancestry.com with extreme caution. many contributors do not verify their sources. a few weeks ago i posted some excellent genealogical resources available on the net.
 
roslyn

--- On Sun, 3/13/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:


From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records
To:
Received: Sunday, March 13, 2011, 5:23 PM


 



Here's a list of Cecily's children at Hull
<http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal00989> . Joan
is included and according to this site, she was Cecily's first.

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 , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more or less
than
> > any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most
vulnerable
> > and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth.
So, my
> > guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after
the
> > birth as was possible.
>
> > Joan
>
> Something else supporting Joan's thought is that, with a few known
exceptions, if we find a name for a child in the records, that child was
born alive, though it may have lived only minutes. Cecily and the Duke
had a number of children for whom we have only the name -- Henry,
William, John, Thomas, Ursula, plus the possibly non-existent Joan. It
may be that they were short-lived babes, quickly baptised.
>
> I couldn't remember all the names of Cecily's children...in looking it
up I found this entry online
>
>
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/p/cecily_neville.htm
>
> which states that William, John, Thomas and Ursula lived several
years. I've never seen that information anywhere else. Anyone know
where it may have come from?
>
> Katy
>

And can I also add familysearch.org... let's not even go there. My cousin put stuff on there about our family that is full of errors, as serious as people being given the wrong parents, and that's people who have lived in the last 150 years for whom primary sources are easily found. It's only as reliable as the data of whoever put it on there, so I can only imagine what codswallop has been put on that site for medieval genealogy.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Date: Sunday, March 13, 2011 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records
To:

> use hull with extreme caution. the creator was building a data
> base, not a verified genealogical source.
>  
> also, use rootsweb and ancestry.com with extreme caution. many
> contributors do not verify their sources. a few weeks ago i
> posted some excellent genealogical resources available on the net.
>  
> roslyn
>
> --- On Sun, 3/13/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records
> To:
> Received: Sunday, March 13, 2011, 5:23 PM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Here's a list of Cecily's children at Hull
> <http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-
> bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal00989> . Joan
> is included and according to this site, she was Cecily's first.
>
> 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 , "oregon_katy"
> <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced that Richard was a "sickly" baby any more
> or less
> than
> > > any baby born then. The first year of life was (is?) the most
> vulnerable
> > > and "Cis" was already 38 when she had Richard, her twelfth birth.
> So, my
> > > guess is that all the children would get baptized as quickly after
> the
> > > birth as was possible.
> >
> > > Joan
> >
> > Something else supporting Joan's thought is that, with a few known
> exceptions, if we find a name for a child in the records, that
> child was
> born alive, though it may have lived only minutes. Cecily and
> the Duke
> had a number of children for whom we have only the name -- Henry,
> William, John, Thomas, Ursula, plus the possibly non-existent
> Joan. It
> may be that they were short-lived babes, quickly baptised.
> >
> > I couldn't remember all the names of Cecily's children...in
> looking it
> up I found this entry online
> >
> >
> http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/p/cecily_neville.htm
> >
> > which states that William, John, Thomas and Ursula lived several
> years. I've never seen that information anywhere else. Anyone know
> where it may have come from?
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
> And can I also add familysearch.org... let's not even go there. My >cousin put stuff on there about our family that is full of errors, >as serious as people being given the wrong parents, and that's >people who have lived in the last 150 years for whom primary sources >it on there, so I can only imagine what codswallop has been put on >that site for medieval genealogy.


I encountered an example of that recently. I was noodling around online trying to trace a lesser-known individual in our favorite era. Several sources said his wife's name was Margaret. Then I found one which said it was Mary. I think that was a misreading of "Marg" in some record. Then I found two family trees that gave her name as Mary Margaret, which I certainly doubt, since I've never heard of that combination used in the 15th century. No double given name, for that matter.

Lots of the information found online is somebody's family tree, and amazingly enough, they often seem to trace back to royalty, just as anyone with any American Indian ancestry is descended from a tribal chief.

Katy

For an accessible and very thorough discussion of the possible identity of the 2nd continuator you can't do much better than read the introduction to the Pronay & Cox edition of the Crowland Chronicle published by the Richard III Yorkist & History Trust (an imprint of the Richard III Society). I described is as 'accessible' because although there are various learned articles on the subject written by such luminaries as Professor Henry Kelly, at least the Pronay & Cox is available for purchase or library loan.

Pronay & Cox source the Russell attribution to Paul Murray Kendall, who intimated that he was writing an article on the subject but never did, so they assume he possibly underwent a change of mind. However, I think that as soon as the Russell genie was out of the bottle, it spread like wildfire. Since then alternative contenders have been put forward. Pronay & Cox favour Dr Henry Sharp, who fits such known criteria as there are. Michael Hicks favours a chap named Lavender, and Alison Hanham recently suggested a whole nother theory in The Ricardian edition of 2008. My appendix of sources in The Maligned King discusses the Chronicle on pp. 287-8, but I didn't have space to go much into the debate over authorship. I certainly agree that Russell is a most unlikely author. I have suggested to the Society that I'd love to see them organise a symposium on the Crowland Chronicle and get the leading scholars together to thrash out their conflicting theories, not only on authorship but also on translations and interpretations. Now that I've relocated back to England I will try to resurrect the idea .... you never know.

Regarding "Richard liveth yet", see my page 20. It appears that the extra words in the English rhyme were simply there for the metre of the line: there's no comment about Richard (other than his name) in the Latin version, which is taken to have been written contemporaneously by the same author.

Which brings me to the problem of Rosemary Horrox and author's amendments. In the past it's been quite difficult for an author to disseminate information about text changes in later editions of a book consequent on information coming to light after publication, but nowadays with the internet there are more ways of spreading such information. In my case I have made corrections and amendments to both paperback editions of my book, but have done my best to notify RIII Society members on each occasion. A complete list of the amendments is available from me by email to anyone who wants one, plus the up-to-date list is on the parent society's website (click on the title of the book and follow the link).

If there's been a major change to an author's thinking on a particular topic, this is often disseminated (or ought to be, IMHO) by the author writing an article to substantiate it. I wonder whether Horrox did that perhaps? As an example, I undertook some research in 2009, which was the earliest I could get to the Lambeth Palace Library, which uncovered all sorts of interesting things and led to a complete rewrite of my page 76 in the 2010 edition. I've written an article about it and will let this forum know where and when it appears.

Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different standards?
Regards
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Cc: Judy Thomson
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records



Thanks, Susan! Haven't gotten a Register for years. But have signed back up.

My shakiest moment, recently, came with R. Horrox' Study in Service. I had the
1st Ed., and a friend pointed out a significant (for my purposes) change in the
2nd Ed. A single footnote can crash an idea in 60 seconds; I did recover, by
some fancy footwork, but it took a few days.

Cheers!
Judy

________________________________
From: Susan <shigginbotham2@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 7:57:57 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records

I did devote a blog post to this subject, but it's Anne Sutton and Livia
Visser-Fuchs who first pointed out the fallacy of assuming that the "Richard
Liveth Yet" comment was a reference to little Richard's precarious health. They
discussed the subject at length in a June 1992 Ricardian article entitled,
"'Richard Liveth Yet': An Old Myth."

The comment appears in this context:

"Sir, aftir the tyme of longe bareynesse,
God first sent Anne, which signifyeth grace,
In token that at her hertis hevynesse
He as for bareynesse would fro hem chace.
Harry, Edward, and Edmonde, eche is his place
Succcedid; and after tweyn doughters cam
Elizabeth and Margarete, and aftir William.

"John aftir William nexte borne was,
Whiche bothe he passid to Goddis grace:
George was next, and after Thomas
Borne was, which sone aftir did pace
By the pathe of dethe into the heavenly place.
Richard liveth yet; but the last of alle
Was Ursula, to him God list calle."

Earlier in the rhyme, Richard, Duke of York himself is spoken of as "Richard
which yet liveth," not as a comment on his health but simply to contrast him
with his dead ancestors.

Personally, I'm not surprised we know so little about the circumstances of
Richard's christening. He was the fourth living son of a duke; no one expected
him to become king at the time.

Susan Higginbotham

http://susandhigginbotham.blogspot.com/2009/12/richard-iii-sickly-child.html

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...>
wrote:
>
> I wouldn't put too much weight to "Richard liveth yet" as Susan
> Higginbotham discovered that this has more to do with his legal status
> than his health, IIRC.
>
> 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
>
> ---

Where did Ian Mortimer write that "fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts"? This piece he wrote for the Guardian under his pen name of James Forrester suggests that he has a more nuanced view of the historical-accuracy question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/06/lying-historical-fiction

On his Amazon UK page, he has this to say about the matter:

"Q: How important do you feel is it to be accurate when writing historical fiction?

"A: This is a hard question to answer: it needs a whole book! Briefly, it depends on the plot, its location, its political nature, things like that. A writer's accuracy is a bit like a diet in that he/she has to try things out to see what works for him or her. For example, I am quite happy to invent a character if a certain sort of character is needed for dramatic tension--and in that inventiveness I am throwing away all pretence of accuracy--but I consider it very important to get the character right. I myself consider it equally important to be accurate with regard to social detail. If a Catholic man walked into a tavern in 1563 and saw meat being roasted on a spit in Lent, he would be appalled--and for this not to be remarked on in a modern story would show a lack of understanding of the period on the part of the author, and thus question the author's engagement with the period."

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different standards?
> Regards
> Annette
>
>

Dear Ms. Carson,

My deepest appreciation for your weighing in on these topics.

In re: Horrox, no harm was ultimately done, especially as I "flew" to her
sources for amendment, Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs and discovered, to my
great relief, that "misreading" did not mean absence.

One joke I've been sharing with my research colleague, who gained bona fides at
the Bodleian, and whom I trust more than myself (being so old and rusty) is the
notion I can post a Disclaimer, not of Fiction, but based on the recent
craziness of Quantum Theory et al. An astrophysicist friend, in fact, suggested
this to me, so I cannot take credit. He said that in a conversation with Freeman
Dyson, Dyson told him Reality has become so complex and weird to comprehend, he
could comfortably assert two crazy notions. 1) He is surprised, probability
being what it is, there are not MORE coincidences that rank as Miracles, and 2)
all things are possible given enough time...but also all things may be already
TRUE, given certain permutations of Multi-verse theory. Dr. S. now suggests I
provide a gently humorous disclaimer that all I write is true, but not
necessarily here, and the Alert Reader (nod to Dave Barry) will take pleasure in
discovering the differences.

With Crowland/Croyland in hand, with my photocopies from the letters of the
Milanese ambassadors...with Patty paying to search the BL data base, plus others
more obscure, I'm doing all I can and drowning. A story is a story, and while we
owe our educated readers our best efforts, no matter what we do, research will
always outpace us.

Sincere thanks,
Judy Gerard Thomson



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 4:29:35 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records


For an accessible and very thorough discussion of the possible identity of the
2nd continuator you can't do much better than read the introduction to the
Pronay & Cox edition of the Crowland Chronicle published by the Richard III
Yorkist & History Trust (an imprint of the Richard III Society). I described is
as 'accessible' because although there are various learned articles on the
subject written by such luminaries as Professor Henry Kelly, at least the Pronay
& Cox is available for purchase or library loan.

Pronay & Cox source the Russell attribution to Paul Murray Kendall, who
intimated that he was writing an article on the subject but never did, so they
assume he possibly underwent a change of mind. However, I think that as soon as
the Russell genie was out of the bottle, it spread like wildfire. Since then
alternative contenders have been put forward. Pronay & Cox favour Dr Henry
Sharp, who fits such known criteria as there are. Michael Hicks favours a chap
named Lavender, and Alison Hanham recently suggested a whole nother theory in
The Ricardian edition of 2008. My appendix of sources in The Maligned King
discusses the Chronicle on pp. 287-8, but I didn't have space to go much into
the debate over authorship. I certainly agree that Russell is a most unlikely
author. I have suggested to the Society that I'd love to see them organise a
symposium on the Crowland Chronicle and get the leading scholars together to
thrash out their conflicting theories, not only on authorship but also on
translations and interpretations. Now that I've relocated back to England I will
try to resurrect the idea .... you never know.

Regarding "Richard liveth yet", see my page 20. It appears that the extra words
in the English rhyme were simply there for the metre of the line: there's no
comment about Richard (other than his name) in the Latin version, which is taken
to have been written contemporaneously by the same author.

Which brings me to the problem of Rosemary Horrox and author's amendments. In
the past it's been quite difficult for an author to disseminate information
about text changes in later editions of a book consequent on information coming
to light after publication, but nowadays with the internet there are more ways
of spreading such information. In my case I have made corrections and amendments
to both paperback editions of my book, but have done my best to notify RIII
Society members on each occasion. A complete list of the amendments is available
from me by email to anyone who wants one, plus the up-to-date list is on the
parent society's website (click on the title of the book and follow the link).

If there's been a major change to an author's thinking on a particular topic,
this is often disseminated (or ought to be, IMHO) by the author writing an
article to substantiate it. I wonder whether Horrox did that perhaps? As an
example, I undertook some research in 2009, which was the earliest I could get
to the Lambeth Palace Library, which uncovered all sorts of interesting things
and led to a complete rewrite of my page 76 in the 2010 edition. I've written an
article about it and will let this forum know where and when it appears.


Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do
you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do
you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can
write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For
myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his
fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he
writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with
his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different
standards?
Regards
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Cc: Judy Thomson
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records

Thanks, Susan! Haven't gotten a Register for years. But have signed back up.

My shakiest moment, recently, came with R. Horrox' Study in Service. I had the
1st Ed., and a friend pointed out a significant (for my purposes) change in the
2nd Ed. A single footnote can crash an idea in 60 seconds; I did recover, by
some fancy footwork, but it took a few days.

Cheers!
Judy

________________________________
From: Susan <shigginbotham2@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 13, 2011 7:57:57 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records

I did devote a blog post to this subject, but it's Anne Sutton and Livia
Visser-Fuchs who first pointed out the fallacy of assuming that the "Richard
Liveth Yet" comment was a reference to little Richard's precarious health. They
discussed the subject at length in a June 1992 Ricardian article entitled,
"'Richard Liveth Yet': An Old Myth."

The comment appears in this context:

"Sir, aftir the tyme of longe bareynesse,
God first sent Anne, which signifyeth grace,
In token that at her hertis hevynesse
He as for bareynesse would fro hem chace.
Harry, Edward, and Edmonde, eche is his place
Succcedid; and after tweyn doughters cam
Elizabeth and Margarete, and aftir William.

"John aftir William nexte borne was,
Whiche bothe he passid to Goddis grace:
George was next, and after Thomas
Borne was, which sone aftir did pace
By the pathe of dethe into the heavenly place.
Richard liveth yet; but the last of alle
Was Ursula, to him God list calle."

Earlier in the rhyme, Richard, Duke of York himself is spoken of as "Richard
which yet liveth," not as a comment on his health but simply to contrast him
with his dead ancestors.

Personally, I'm not surprised we know so little about the circumstances of
Richard's christening. He was the fourth living son of a duke; no one expected
him to become king at the time.

Susan Higginbotham

http://susandhigginbotham.blogspot.com/2009/12/richard-iii-sickly-child.html

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...>
wrote:
>
> I wouldn't put too much weight to "Richard liveth yet" as Susan
> Higginbotham discovered that this has more to do with his legal status
> than his health, IIRC.
>
> 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 , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

An astrophysicist friend, in fact, suggested
> this to me, so I cannot take credit. He said that in a conversation with Freeman
> Dyson, Dyson told him Reality has become so complex and weird to comprehend, he
> could comfortably assert two crazy notions. 1) He is surprised, probability
> being what it is, there are not MORE coincidences that rank as Miracles, and 2)
> all things are possible given enough time...but also all things may be already
> TRUE, given certain permutations of Multi-verse theory.
>


I took a class in quantum physics for non-scientists. In fact, I took it twice. It still makes my brain itch. However, I fully believe in alternate universes. One of them must have been where my rain jacket was while I looked everywhere for days, only to find it hanging in the coat closet in plain sight (a place I had searched two or three times) a few hours after I bought a new one.

Katy

As someone who writes (unpublished) historical fiction, I am a firm believer in getting things right. The factual background provides a framework against which your characters can move, and as a fiction writer, you can deal with things like motivation which the factual record has left unclear.
 
For instance, it is clear from the factual record that Robert Bruce murdered John Comyn the Red in a church in Dumfries in 1306, but why exactly he did it, and why he did it at the particular time, remains obscure. As a novelist, however, you can put your own interpretation on events, provided that it not out of keeping with what is known.

--- On Mon, 14/3/11, Susan <shigginbotham2@...> wrote:


From: Susan <shigginbotham2@...>
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction
To:
Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 14:33


 



Where did Ian Mortimer write that "fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts"? This piece he wrote for the Guardian under his pen name of James Forrester suggests that he has a more nuanced view of the historical-accuracy question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/06/lying-historical-fiction

On his Amazon UK page, he has this to say about the matter:

"Q: How important do you feel is it to be accurate when writing historical fiction?

"A: This is a hard question to answer: it needs a whole book! Briefly, it depends on the plot, its location, its political nature, things like that. A writer's accuracy is a bit like a diet in that he/she has to try things out to see what works for him or her. For example, I am quite happy to invent a character if a certain sort of character is needed for dramatic tension--and in that inventiveness I am throwing away all pretence of accuracy--but I consider it very important to get the character right. I myself consider it equally important to be accurate with regard to social detail. If a Catholic man walked into a tavern in 1563 and saw meat being roasted on a spit in Lent, he would be appalled--and for this not to be remarked on in a modern story would show a lack of understanding of the period on the part of the author, and thus question the author's engagement with the period."

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different standards?
> Regards
> Annette
>
>

*LOL* Been there, done that. But are you sure it was the rain jacket
that went to the AU? Could it be that your poor doppelganger is still in
need of a rain jacket?

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

> I took a class in quantum physics for non-scientists. In fact, I took
it twice. It still makes my brain itch. However, I fully believe in
alternate universes. One of them must have been where my rain jacket
was while I looked everywhere for days, only to find it hanging in the
coat closet in plain sight (a place I had searched two or three times) a
few hours after I bought a new one.
>
> Katy
>

Love it, Katy!

My whole art portfolio is currently residing in one; I've searched everywhere,
and my husband claims to have never, ever seen it when he "cleaned up" the
library, where I saw it last.

My beautiful embroidered boar badge from York is also there.

As they said on Saturday Night Live, it's The Island of Lost Luggage--Tolkien
called it Eldamar, and the ancientCelts used to set sail for the Ultimate West
of the sun. At least Tolkien suggested it can only be accessed through Dream.
And sometimes we may sense it neurologically, but have not the knowledge to
enter. Or, as you say, we just don't see what's right in front of us, like
Sleuth.

Perhaps you recall from your classes the infamous Einstein-Rosen-Padolski (sp?)
experiment, where change of spin of a particle seems to change the spin on
another, remotely located particle? Richard Feynman used to joke with his
classes that anyone who believes he/she understands QM in full is kidding 'self.

Cheers!
Judy



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 10:56:55 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records




--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

An astrophysicist friend, in fact, suggested
> this to me, so I cannot take credit. He said that in a conversation with
>Freeman
>
> Dyson, Dyson told him Reality has become so complex and weird to comprehend, he
>
> could comfortably assert two crazy notions. 1) He is surprised, probability
> being what it is, there are not MORE coincidences that rank as Miracles, and 2)
>
> all things are possible given enough time...but also all things may be already

> TRUE, given certain permutations of Multi-verse theory.
>

I took a class in quantum physics for non-scientists. In fact, I took it twice.
It still makes my brain itch. However, I fully believe in alternate universes.
One of them must have been where my rain jacket was while I looked everywhere
for days, only to find it hanging in the coat closet in plain sight (a place I
had searched two or three times) a few hours after I bought a new one.

Katy

Hear! Hear! Master Lyon.



________________________________
From: A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 11:23:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction


As someone who writes (unpublished) historical fiction, I am a firm believer in
getting things right. The factual background provides a framework against which
your characters can move, and as a fiction writer, you can deal with things like
motivation which the factual record has left unclear.

For instance, it is clear from the factual record that Robert Bruce murdered
John Comyn the Red in a church in Dumfries in 1306, but why exactly he did it,
and why he did it at the particular time, remains obscure. As a novelist,
however, you can put your own interpretation on events, provided that it not out
of keeping with what is known.

--- On Mon, 14/3/11, Susan <shigginbotham2@...> wrote:

From: Susan <shigginbotham2@...>
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction
To:
Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 14:33



Where did Ian Mortimer write that "fiction is fiction and you can write whatever
you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts"? This piece he
wrote for the Guardian under his pen name of James Forrester suggests that he
has a more nuanced view of the historical-accuracy question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/06/lying-historical-fiction

On his Amazon UK page, he has this to say about the matter:

"Q: How important do you feel is it to be accurate when writing historical
fiction?

"A: This is a hard question to answer: it needs a whole book! Briefly, it
depends on the plot, its location, its political nature, things like that. A
writer's accuracy is a bit like a diet in that he/she has to try things out to
see what works for him or her. For example, I am quite happy to invent a
character if a certain sort of character is needed for dramatic tension--and in
that inventiveness I am throwing away all pretence of accuracy--but I consider
it very important to get the character right. I myself consider it equally
important to be accurate with regard to social detail. If a Catholic man walked
into a tavern in 1563 and saw meat being roasted on a spit in Lent, he would be
appalled--and for this not to be remarked on in a modern story would show a lack
of understanding of the period on the part of the author, and thus question the
author's engagement with the period."

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do
>you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do
>you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can
>write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For
>myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his
>fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he
>writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with
>his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different
>standards?
> Regards
> Annette
>
>

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> As someone who writes (unpublished) historical fiction, I am a firm believer in getting things right. The factual background provides a framework against which your characters can move, and as a fiction writer, you can deal with things like motivation which the factual record has left unclear.
>  
> For instance, it is clear from the factual record that Robert Bruce >murdered John Comyn the Red in a church in Dumfries in 1306, but why >he did it, and why he did it at the particular time, remains >obscure. As a novelist, however, you can put your own interpretation >on events, provided that it not out of keeping with what is known.


Maybe. As I recall the story, the Bruce and the Comyn went into the church to talk, and after a while the Bruce, appearing a bit rattled, emerged and told his men "I think I have killed the Comyn." The men responded, essentially, "We'll go check!" and rushed into the church, weapons drawn.

Sure enough, it turned out the Comyn was dead. Who dealt the fatal wounds is not so clear. (Like much of history.)

Katy

Yes, they went in "to mak siccar", if I recall. Sounds like the joke about the hunter who accidentally shot his friend and called an ambulance ..............

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction





--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> As someone who writes (unpublished) historical fiction, I am a firm believer in getting things right. The factual background provides a framework against which your characters can move, and as a fiction writer, you can deal with things like motivation which the factual record has left unclear.
> Â
> For instance, it is clear from the factual record that Robert Bruce >murdered John Comyn the Red in a church in Dumfries in 1306, but why >he did it, and why he did it at the particular time, remains >obscure. As a novelist, however, you can put your own interpretation >on events, provided that it not out of keeping with what is known.

Maybe. As I recall the story, the Bruce and the Comyn went into the church to talk, and after a while the Bruce, appearing a bit rattled, emerged and told his men "I think I have killed the Comyn." The men responded, essentially, "We'll go check!" and rushed into the church, weapons drawn.

Sure enough, it turned out the Comyn was dead. Who dealt the fatal wounds is not so clear. (Like much of history.)

Katy

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>

.
>
> Perhaps you recall from your classes the infamous Einstein-Rosen-Padolski (sp?)
> experiment, where change of spin of a particle seems to change the spin on
> another, remotely located particle?



Oh yes. "Spooky things operating at a distance." Or is it "occurring?"

I have discovered that one way to trick Lost Things into reappearing is to pretend to be looking for something else. If I had thought to walk around saying loudly "Now, where is my turkey baster?" my rain jacket might have come back sooner. Oh well...the new one was on sale.

Katy

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> For instance, it is clear from the factual record that Robert Bruce murdered John Comyn the Red in a church in Dumfries in 1306, but why exactly he did it, and why he did it at the particular time, remains obscure. As a novelist, however, you can put your own interpretation on events, provided that it not out of keeping with what is known.


By the way, there was also a Black John Comyn, in addition to the Red. Since there are often several individuals with the same name moving in the same circles at the same time (such as Isabel de Spencer's two husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard Beauchamp, or John Paston and his two sons by the same wife, John and John, not to mention Barbara Tuchman's introduction to A Distant Mirror, in which she talks about having spent a year and a half followed the wrong Ingerraud de Coucy) why is there a need to differentiate the two John Comyns? And is one the Red and the other the Black based on color of hair?

I'd try to research this for myself, but I tend to get caught up in ricochet research (starting out on one topic and getting beguiled into following more and more threads and hyperlinks and footnotes) and I have to go to work now.

Katy

Dear Katy,

We also have a "ghost" we call Andrew. "He" first showed up when a friend passed
away. The living man was quite the Prankster, so we address "Andrew" and ask:
Where did you put such-and-such? Sometimes this works.

The weirdest bit: the very day my portfolio went missing, I discovered, way down
on my mail list some unopened Emails. One from him. It said: Write. You're
better at that." No joke. Andy never liked my artwork (he was a diehard Abstract
Expressionist), but he encouraged me to write. The day my portfolio went
missing, I went back to a novel that had been languishing for two months...and
THEN I found the Email, in that order.

Go figure (and cue Twilight Zone theme, right?)

: ) Judy



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 12:42:49 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records




--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>

.
>
> Perhaps you recall from your classes the infamous Einstein-Rosen-Padolski (sp?)
>
> experiment, where change of spin of a particle seems to change the spin on
> another, remotely located particle?

Oh yes. "Spooky things operating at a distance." Or is it "occurring?"

I have discovered that one way to trick Lost Things into reappearing is to
pretend to be looking for something else. If I had thought to walk around
saying loudly "Now, where is my turkey baster?" my rain jacket might have come
back sooner. Oh well...the new one was on sale.

Katy

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

> Oh yes. "Spooky things operating at a distance." Or is it "occurring?"



I decided I had to have the accurate quotation (it was look that up or go back to cleaning the cabinet under the sink -- no contest) so I googled it.

Neither is correct -- it should be "spooky action at a distance" or, in the original German, "spukhafte Fernwirkung."

That was the product of ten minutes down the Internet rabbit hole, during which I ricocheted among several interesting topics.

I've strayed rather far from Richard's baptismal records, I fear.

Katy

Hmmmm . . . I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the good old Guardian - anyway, the piece I saw was written under the name Ian Mortimer. Nor was it on Amazon, which I don't often consult. I have a friend who sends me reams of cuttings, mostly from periodicals in the fields of history, publishing, literature and the like (TLS, Literary Review, The Bookseller, etc), far too many for me to keep them all. Mortimer was not in nuanced vein when he wrote what I read, which was a very brief piece - but I admit I was summarizing his comments, not attempting to quote him verbatim. Nor was he discussing errors or historical incongruities in fiction: he was simply saying that in fiction, including historical fiction, an author can make up stuff that isn't true.

I was reminded of this when I read Hilary Mantel's 'Wolf Hall', which contains some surprising - to me - events, characters and characterisations. Not being an expert on the Tudor period, I couldn't be sure what was true and what was made up (no, Paul, I'm afraid I don't watch "The Tudors"!), so it set me wondering. For example, I'm sure a large amount of Cromwell's early/private life in Mantel's book must have been pure invention, but does it matter? And would it matter if contradictory facts surfaced at some future date? Another example: Mantel gives Cromwell a fondness for small dogs, a device which gives him a sympathetic dimension. How much would it matter if some conflicting anecdote came to light one day, like the one about Thomas More's less than kind treatment of his own dog? (Which may or mayn't be true, of course, although it may have prompted Mantel to confer on Cromwell the opposite characteristic.) The author of a non-fiction book can revisit it, make amendments, write an article, whatever, but I wonder how Hilary Mantel would react. Or would it simply not matter?
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction



Where did Ian Mortimer write that "fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts"? This piece he wrote for the Guardian under his pen name of James Forrester suggests that he has a more nuanced view of the historical-accuracy question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/06/lying-historical-fiction

On his Amazon UK page, he has this to say about the matter:

"Q: How important do you feel is it to be accurate when writing historical fiction?

"A: This is a hard question to answer: it needs a whole book! Briefly, it depends on the plot, its location, its political nature, things like that. A writer's accuracy is a bit like a diet in that he/she has to try things out to see what works for him or her. For example, I am quite happy to invent a character if a certain sort of character is needed for dramatic tension--and in that inventiveness I am throwing away all pretence of accuracy--but I consider it very important to get the character right. I myself consider it equally important to be accurate with regard to social detail. If a Catholic man walked into a tavern in 1563 and saw meat being roasted on a spit in Lent, he would be appalled--and for this not to be remarked on in a modern story would show a lack of understanding of the period on the part of the author, and thus question the author's engagement with the period."

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different standards?
> Regards
> Annette
>
>

Dear Annette,

Forgive, in advance, if I ramble : )

Some years ago, we attended a performance of 42nd Street at the Chicago Civic
Opera; afterwards the group enjoyed dinner at a nearby restaurant. One of our
number, an actor, had agreed to play the role of Archbishop at our upcoming 1983
"Coronation of Richard and Anne" dinner, and we were considering how best to
costume him (on a limited budget).

A gentleman seated at an adjacent table overheard us, and invited himself over;
he had played a role in the musical. We were honored.

He told us a great story:

In the days of Hello, Dolly, on Broadway, this man was in the chorus of the
production starring Carol Channing. One day, he was sitting back stage, reading
Daughter of Time, when Ms. Channing walked by, asked what he was reading, then
frowned. "But Dearie," she said, "they've all been dead for over 400 years. What
does it matter?" And, of course, he had no witty reply.

But he felt it did matter, and when he heard our prattle, he was compelled to
join in....

Historical fiction remains Fiction. I happen to enjoy my historical fiction
well-researched, but I also like a good read, and I willingly surrender some
disbelief for a ripping yarn. Tedium destroys narrative; anyone who has slogged
through Romola (and isn't working on her doctorate) might tend to agree : )

When a book is "adapted" for cinema, someone always complains, regardless of the
articulate explanations put forth regarding "the differences between art forms."
Perhaps, similar arguments might be made for fictionalizations of any sort. The
Greeks held History to be an art, represented by a Muse--Daughter of
Memory--Cleo. I used to get bent out of shape when I discovered a lapse of fact.
I no longer do so, or at least I don't get as emotional. Did the writer give the
proper disclaimer? Real persons, used fictionally, metamorph into Characters.
Our brains are hardwired, however, into perceiving them as real people, given
sufficient information and a dose of strong belief.

"Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table with
family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
versions.

I'm not excusing sloppy scholarship or slip-shod work, but at some point we must
take a breath and say: Peace.

With warm regards,
Judy



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 4:22:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction


Hmmmm . . . I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the good old Guardian - anyway, the
piece I saw was written under the name Ian Mortimer. Nor was it on Amazon, which
I don't often consult. I have a friend who sends me reams of cuttings, mostly
from periodicals in the fields of history, publishing, literature and the like
(TLS, Literary Review, The Bookseller, etc), far too many for me to keep them
all. Mortimer was not in nuanced vein when he wrote what I read, which was a
very brief piece - but I admit I was summarizing his comments, not attempting to
quote him verbatim. Nor was he discussing errors or historical incongruities in
fiction: he was simply saying that in fiction, including historical fiction, an
author can make up stuff that isn't true.

I was reminded of this when I read Hilary Mantel's 'Wolf Hall', which contains
some surprising - to me - events, characters and characterisations. Not being an
expert on the Tudor period, I couldn't be sure what was true and what was made
up (no, Paul, I'm afraid I don't watch "The Tudors"!), so it set me wondering.
For example, I'm sure a large amount of Cromwell's early/private life in
Mantel's book must have been pure invention, but does it matter? And would it
matter if contradictory facts surfaced at some future date? Another example:
Mantel gives Cromwell a fondness for small dogs, a device which gives him a
sympathetic dimension. How much would it matter if some conflicting anecdote
came to light one day, like the one about Thomas More's less than kind treatment
of his own dog? (Which may or mayn't be true, of course, although it may have
prompted Mantel to confer on Cromwell the opposite characteristic.) The author
of a non-fiction book can revisit it, make amendments, write an article,
whatever, but I wonder how Hilary Mantel would react. Or would it simply not
matter?
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction

Where did Ian Mortimer write that "fiction is fiction and you can write whatever
you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts"? This piece he
wrote for the Guardian under his pen name of James Forrester suggests that he
has a more nuanced view of the historical-accuracy question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/06/lying-historical-fiction

On his Amazon UK page, he has this to say about the matter:

"Q: How important do you feel is it to be accurate when writing historical
fiction?

"A: This is a hard question to answer: it needs a whole book! Briefly, it
depends on the plot, its location, its political nature, things like that. A
writer's accuracy is a bit like a diet in that he/she has to try things out to
see what works for him or her. For example, I am quite happy to invent a
character if a certain sort of character is needed for dramatic tension--and in
that inventiveness I am throwing away all pretence of accuracy--but I consider
it very important to get the character right. I myself consider it equally
important to be accurate with regard to social detail. If a Catholic man walked
into a tavern in 1563 and saw meat being roasted on a spit in Lent, he would be
appalled--and for this not to be remarked on in a modern story would show a lack
of understanding of the period on the part of the author, and thus question the
author's engagement with the period."

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do
>you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do
>you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can
>write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For
>myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his
>fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he
>writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with
>his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different
>standards?
> Regards
> Annette
>
>

Susan wrote:

>"John aftir William nexte borne was,
>Whiche bothe he passid to Goddis grace:
>George was next, and after Thomas
>Borne was, which sone aftir did pace
>By the pathe of dethe into the heavenly place.
>Richard liveth yet; but the last of alle
>Was Ursula, to him God list calle."
>
>
In context, this clearly does not imply Richard was sickly, it just
points out that he was alive while his nearest siblings on either side
had died.

--- In , Ed Simons <easimons@...> wrote:
>
> Susan wrote:
>
> >"John aftir William nexte borne was,
> >Whiche bothe he passid to Goddis grace:
> >George was next, and after Thomas
> >Borne was, which sone aftir did pace
> >By the pathe of dethe into the heavenly place.
> >Richard liveth yet; but the last of alle
> >Was Ursula, to him God list calle."
> >
> >
> In context, this clearly does not imply Richard was sickly, it just
> points out that he was alive while his nearest siblings on either side
> had died.
>


I think that's a good, sensible interpretation.

Katy

Hi Judy - I love the idea of your disclaimer ("All that I write is true, but not necessarily here, and the Alert Reader will take pleasure in discovering the differences"). And I'd forgotten the notes in Flashman where Fraser deals so adroitly with previous lapses - those books are such a laugh.

Personally I don't get annoyed by inaccuracies in fiction, otherwise one would never enjoy any kind of recreational reading or viewing. If I put down a novel without finishing it, the usual reason is simply the style of writing, or a lack of sympathy with the characters. If it's a great movie or great literature ("Becket", "The Lion in Winter", "A Man for all Seasons" spring to mind) it doesn't matter much to me if it's historically skewed or inaccurate. On the other hand, inaccuracies in fiction do seem to matter very much to some people - at which point perhaps I should ask whether The Tudors is classed as historical fiction ... ?

It's my understanding, from people I've known in the acting profession, that they get snippy letters from Ricardians whenever they're involved in productions of "Richard III" - Antony Sher was particularly rueful about some of the letters he got. Personally I would never stick my neck out to criticise performers or writers of fiction, whose talents I could never hope to emulate. But I am very much interested by the creative process and what degree of care goes into it and why (e.g. Joan's description of not only historical research but also scientific verisimilitude with her concept of time travel). As an aside, I wonder whether Hilary Mantel is getting it in the neck from devotees of Thomas More?

Thinking of time travel, and of Judy's reflections on how our priorities change over the years: I used to adore reading science fiction in the 60s and 70s, and a couple of years ago I re-read some favourites that had been sitting on my bookshelves for decades (Asimov, Heinlein, etc). I was terribly disappointed to find that my tastes had changed and they didn't appeal at all - and it wasn't that I remembered the plots, because I didn't! Sadly it's ages since I've had time for recreational reading, but now that I've "retired" I hope to start getting better at balancing all my different commitments. I do find, however, that once Ricardian topics get hold of you, it's difficult to break free.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Cc: Judy Thomson
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction



Dear Annette,

Forgive, in advance, if I ramble : )

Some years ago, we attended a performance of 42nd Street at the Chicago Civic
Opera; afterwards the group enjoyed dinner at a nearby restaurant. One of our
number, an actor, had agreed to play the role of Archbishop at our upcoming 1983
"Coronation of Richard and Anne" dinner, and we were considering how best to
costume him (on a limited budget).

A gentleman seated at an adjacent table overheard us, and invited himself over;
he had played a role in the musical. We were honored.

He told us a great story:

In the days of Hello, Dolly, on Broadway, this man was in the chorus of the
production starring Carol Channing. One day, he was sitting back stage, reading
Daughter of Time, when Ms. Channing walked by, asked what he was reading, then
frowned. "But Dearie," she said, "they've all been dead for over 400 years. What
does it matter?" And, of course, he had no witty reply.

But he felt it did matter, and when he heard our prattle, he was compelled to
join in....

Historical fiction remains Fiction. I happen to enjoy my historical fiction
well-researched, but I also like a good read, and I willingly surrender some
disbelief for a ripping yarn. Tedium destroys narrative; anyone who has slogged
through Romola (and isn't working on her doctorate) might tend to agree : )

When a book is "adapted" for cinema, someone always complains, regardless of the
articulate explanations put forth regarding "the differences between art forms."
Perhaps, similar arguments might be made for fictionalizations of any sort. The
Greeks held History to be an art, represented by a Muse--Daughter of
Memory--Cleo. I used to get bent out of shape when I discovered a lapse of fact.
I no longer do so, or at least I don't get as emotional. Did the writer give the
proper disclaimer? Real persons, used fictionally, metamorph into Characters.
Our brains are hardwired, however, into perceiving them as real people, given
sufficient information and a dose of strong belief.

"Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table with
family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
versions.

I'm not excusing sloppy scholarship or slip-shod work, but at some point we must
take a breath and say: Peace.

With warm regards,
Judy

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 4:22:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction

Hmmmm . . . I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the good old Guardian - anyway, the
piece I saw was written under the name Ian Mortimer. Nor was it on Amazon, which
I don't often consult. I have a friend who sends me reams of cuttings, mostly
from periodicals in the fields of history, publishing, literature and the like
(TLS, Literary Review, The Bookseller, etc), far too many for me to keep them
all. Mortimer was not in nuanced vein when he wrote what I read, which was a
very brief piece - but I admit I was summarizing his comments, not attempting to
quote him verbatim. Nor was he discussing errors or historical incongruities in
fiction: he was simply saying that in fiction, including historical fiction, an
author can make up stuff that isn't true.

I was reminded of this when I read Hilary Mantel's 'Wolf Hall', which contains
some surprising - to me - events, characters and characterisations. Not being an
expert on the Tudor period, I couldn't be sure what was true and what was made
up (no, Paul, I'm afraid I don't watch "The Tudors"!), so it set me wondering.
For example, I'm sure a large amount of Cromwell's early/private life in
Mantel's book must have been pure invention, but does it matter? And would it
matter if contradictory facts surfaced at some future date? Another example:
Mantel gives Cromwell a fondness for small dogs, a device which gives him a
sympathetic dimension. How much would it matter if some conflicting anecdote
came to light one day, like the one about Thomas More's less than kind treatment
of his own dog? (Which may or mayn't be true, of course, although it may have
prompted Mantel to confer on Cromwell the opposite characteristic.) The author
of a non-fiction book can revisit it, make amendments, write an article,
whatever, but I wonder how Hilary Mantel would react. Or would it simply not
matter?
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction

Where did Ian Mortimer write that "fiction is fiction and you can write whatever
you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts"? This piece he
wrote for the Guardian under his pen name of James Forrester suggests that he
has a more nuanced view of the historical-accuracy question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/06/lying-historical-fiction

On his Amazon UK page, he has this to say about the matter:

"Q: How important do you feel is it to be accurate when writing historical
fiction?

"A: This is a hard question to answer: it needs a whole book! Briefly, it
depends on the plot, its location, its political nature, things like that. A
writer's accuracy is a bit like a diet in that he/she has to try things out to
see what works for him or her. For example, I am quite happy to invent a
character if a certain sort of character is needed for dramatic tension--and in
that inventiveness I am throwing away all pretence of accuracy--but I consider
it very important to get the character right. I myself consider it equally
important to be accurate with regard to social detail. If a Catholic man walked
into a tavern in 1563 and saw meat being roasted on a spit in Lent, he would be
appalled--and for this not to be remarked on in a modern story would show a lack
of understanding of the period on the part of the author, and thus question the
author's engagement with the period."

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do
>you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do
>you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can
>write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For
>myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his
>fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he
>writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with
>his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different
>standards?
> Regards
> Annette
>
>

Thanks for your kind words, Annette!

One sci-fi novel that did hold up for me was The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K.
LeGuin...possibly because the overall idea-- daring in its day-- still obtains
in ours. She is also a somewhat better stylist than Heinlein.

I salute you. I once sat on a panel in Chicago with the director of the English
Shakespeare Company, Bernie Sahlins, et al. To the annoyance, I'm sure, of
some, who had hoped for a free-for-all argument on the 6 pm News, I answered the
questions (why Shakespeare's play remains so compelling? etc.), and did not
launch into a rant. In the end, our Local Chapter drew more sincere interest
that day than any other public event we'd ever attended.

And yes, even the Chicago Shakespeare theater gets mail like that.

Joan's mastery of both left and right hemispheres makes her a polymath of the
first order; I've always enjoyed knowing people of passionate interests, coupled
with Reason. You, too, appear to belong to this category, as, no doubt, do a
great many of our fellow Forum colleagues.

Sincerely,
Judy



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 4:20:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction


Hi Judy - I love the idea of your disclaimer ("All that I write is true, but not
necessarily here, and the Alert Reader will take pleasure in discovering the
differences"). And I'd forgotten the notes in Flashman where Fraser deals so
adroitly with previous lapses - those books are such a laugh.

Personally I don't get annoyed by inaccuracies in fiction, otherwise one would
never enjoy any kind of recreational reading or viewing. If I put down a novel
without finishing it, the usual reason is simply the style of writing, or a lack
of sympathy with the characters. If it's a great movie or great literature
("Becket", "The Lion in Winter", "A Man for all Seasons" spring to mind) it
doesn't matter much to me if it's historically skewed or inaccurate. On the
other hand, inaccuracies in fiction do seem to matter very much to some people -
at which point perhaps I should ask whether The Tudors is classed as historical
fiction ... ?

It's my understanding, from people I've known in the acting profession, that
they get snippy letters from Ricardians whenever they're involved in productions
of "Richard III" - Antony Sher was particularly rueful about some of the letters
he got. Personally I would never stick my neck out to criticise performers or
writers of fiction, whose talents I could never hope to emulate. But I am very
much interested by the creative process and what degree of care goes into it and
why (e.g. Joan's description of not only historical research but also scientific
verisimilitude with her concept of time travel). As an aside, I wonder whether
Hilary Mantel is getting it in the neck from devotees of Thomas More?

Thinking of time travel, and of Judy's reflections on how our priorities change
over the years: I used to adore reading science fiction in the 60s and 70s, and
a couple of years ago I re-read some favourites that had been sitting on my
bookshelves for decades (Asimov, Heinlein, etc). I was terribly disappointed to
find that my tastes had changed and they didn't appeal at all - and it wasn't
that I remembered the plots, because I didn't! Sadly it's ages since I've had
time for recreational reading, but now that I've "retired" I hope to start
getting better at balancing all my different commitments. I do find, however,
that once Ricardian topics get hold of you, it's difficult to break free.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Cc: Judy Thomson
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction

Dear Annette,

Forgive, in advance, if I ramble : )

Some years ago, we attended a performance of 42nd Street at the Chicago Civic
Opera; afterwards the group enjoyed dinner at a nearby restaurant. One of our
number, an actor, had agreed to play the role of Archbishop at our upcoming 1983

"Coronation of Richard and Anne" dinner, and we were considering how best to
costume him (on a limited budget).

A gentleman seated at an adjacent table overheard us, and invited himself over;
he had played a role in the musical. We were honored.

He told us a great story:

In the days of Hello, Dolly, on Broadway, this man was in the chorus of the
production starring Carol Channing. One day, he was sitting back stage, reading
Daughter of Time, when Ms. Channing walked by, asked what he was reading, then
frowned. "But Dearie," she said, "they've all been dead for over 400 years. What

does it matter?" And, of course, he had no witty reply.

But he felt it did matter, and when he heard our prattle, he was compelled to
join in....

Historical fiction remains Fiction. I happen to enjoy my historical fiction
well-researched, but I also like a good read, and I willingly surrender some
disbelief for a ripping yarn. Tedium destroys narrative; anyone who has slogged
through Romola (and isn't working on her doctorate) might tend to agree : )

When a book is "adapted" for cinema, someone always complains, regardless of the

articulate explanations put forth regarding "the differences between art forms."

Perhaps, similar arguments might be made for fictionalizations of any sort. The
Greeks held History to be an art, represented by a Muse--Daughter of
Memory--Cleo. I used to get bent out of shape when I discovered a lapse of fact.

I no longer do so, or at least I don't get as emotional. Did the writer give the

proper disclaimer? Real persons, used fictionally, metamorph into Characters.
Our brains are hardwired, however, into perceiving them as real people, given
sufficient information and a dose of strong belief.

"Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table with

family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
versions.

I'm not excusing sloppy scholarship or slip-shod work, but at some point we must

take a breath and say: Peace.

With warm regards,
Judy

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 4:22:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction

Hmmmm . . . I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the good old Guardian - anyway, the
piece I saw was written under the name Ian Mortimer. Nor was it on Amazon, which

I don't often consult. I have a friend who sends me reams of cuttings, mostly
from periodicals in the fields of history, publishing, literature and the like
(TLS, Literary Review, The Bookseller, etc), far too many for me to keep them
all. Mortimer was not in nuanced vein when he wrote what I read, which was a
very brief piece - but I admit I was summarizing his comments, not attempting to

quote him verbatim. Nor was he discussing errors or historical incongruities in
fiction: he was simply saying that in fiction, including historical fiction, an
author can make up stuff that isn't true.

I was reminded of this when I read Hilary Mantel's 'Wolf Hall', which contains
some surprising - to me - events, characters and characterisations. Not being an

expert on the Tudor period, I couldn't be sure what was true and what was made
up (no, Paul, I'm afraid I don't watch "The Tudors"!), so it set me wondering.
For example, I'm sure a large amount of Cromwell's early/private life in
Mantel's book must have been pure invention, but does it matter? And would it
matter if contradictory facts surfaced at some future date? Another example:
Mantel gives Cromwell a fondness for small dogs, a device which gives him a
sympathetic dimension. How much would it matter if some conflicting anecdote
came to light one day, like the one about Thomas More's less than kind treatment

of his own dog? (Which may or mayn't be true, of course, although it may have
prompted Mantel to confer on Cromwell the opposite characteristic.) The author
of a non-fiction book can revisit it, make amendments, write an article,
whatever, but I wonder how Hilary Mantel would react. Or would it simply not
matter?
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Susan
To:
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction

Where did Ian Mortimer write that "fiction is fiction and you can write whatever

you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts"? This piece he
wrote for the Guardian under his pen name of James Forrester suggests that he
has a more nuanced view of the historical-accuracy question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/06/lying-historical-fiction

On his Amazon UK page, he has this to say about the matter:

"Q: How important do you feel is it to be accurate when writing historical
fiction?

"A: This is a hard question to answer: it needs a whole book! Briefly, it
depends on the plot, its location, its political nature, things like that. A
writer's accuracy is a bit like a diet in that he/she has to try things out to
see what works for him or her. For example, I am quite happy to invent a
character if a certain sort of character is needed for dramatic tension--and in
that inventiveness I am throwing away all pretence of accuracy--but I consider
it very important to get the character right. I myself consider it equally
important to be accurate with regard to social detail. If a Catholic man walked
into a tavern in 1563 and saw meat being roasted on a spit in Lent, he would be
appalled--and for this not to be remarked on in a modern story would show a lack

of understanding of the period on the part of the author, and thus question the
author's engagement with the period."

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do

>you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do

>you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can

>write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For
>
>myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his
>fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he
>writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with

>his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different
>standards?
> Regards
> Annette
>
>

Not really an expert on those ghastly Tudors either Annette, just picked up a lot of info over the years.
I couldn't get through Wolf Hall I'm afraid so I can't really comment. I have a biography of Wolsey and Cromwell that I've never read. But I can't refer to it as it is in storage as I sell up and move out of London.
Hilary Mantel's book on Desmoulins, while beautifully written, was incredibly biased, so she probably took an opinion of Cromwell early on and stuck with it, facts notwithstanding! :-)
Paul

On 14 Mar 2011, at 21:22, Annette Carson wrote:

> Hmmmm . . . I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the good old Guardian - anyway, the piece I saw was written under the name Ian Mortimer. Nor was it on Amazon, which I don't often consult. I have a friend who sends me reams of cuttings, mostly from periodicals in the fields of history, publishing, literature and the like (TLS, Literary Review, The Bookseller, etc), far too many for me to keep them all. Mortimer was not in nuanced vein when he wrote what I read, which was a very brief piece - but I admit I was summarizing his comments, not attempting to quote him verbatim. Nor was he discussing errors or historical incongruities in fiction: he was simply saying that in fiction, including historical fiction, an author can make up stuff that isn't true.
>
> I was reminded of this when I read Hilary Mantel's 'Wolf Hall', which contains some surprising - to me - events, characters and characterisations. Not being an expert on the Tudor period, I couldn't be sure what was true and what was made up (no, Paul, I'm afraid I don't watch "The Tudors"!), so it set me wondering. For example, I'm sure a large amount of Cromwell's early/private life in Mantel's book must have been pure invention, but does it matter? And would it matter if contradictory facts surfaced at some future date? Another example: Mantel gives Cromwell a fondness for small dogs, a device which gives him a sympathetic dimension. How much would it matter if some conflicting anecdote came to light one day, like the one about Thomas More's less than kind treatment of his own dog? (Which may or mayn't be true, of course, although it may have prompted Mantel to confer on Cromwell the opposite characteristic.) The author of a non-fiction book can revisit it, make amendments, write an article, whatever, but I wonder how Hilary Mantel would react. Or would it simply not matter?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Susan
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Historical Fiction
>
>
>
> Where did Ian Mortimer write that "fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts"? This piece he wrote for the Guardian under his pen name of James Forrester suggests that he has a more nuanced view of the historical-accuracy question:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/06/lying-historical-fiction
>
> On his Amazon UK page, he has this to say about the matter:
>
> "Q: How important do you feel is it to be accurate when writing historical fiction?
>
> "A: This is a hard question to answer: it needs a whole book! Briefly, it depends on the plot, its location, its political nature, things like that. A writer's accuracy is a bit like a diet in that he/she has to try things out to see what works for him or her. For example, I am quite happy to invent a character if a certain sort of character is needed for dramatic tension--and in that inventiveness I am throwing away all pretence of accuracy--but I consider it very important to get the character right. I myself consider it equally important to be accurate with regard to social detail. If a Catholic man walked into a tavern in 1563 and saw meat being roasted on a spit in Lent, he would be appalled--and for this not to be remarked on in a modern story would show a lack of understanding of the period on the part of the author, and thus question the author's engagement with the period."
>
> Susan Higginbotham
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Those among us who are novelists face a different quandary, of course. What do you do if new information emerges to contradict something you've written? Or do you say quite baldly, as Ian Mortimer does, that fiction is fiction and you can write whatever you like, even if it runs clearly counter to the known facts? For myself, I find it difficult to reconcile Mortimer's cavalier approach to his fiction with the approach he takes to his historical writing, about which he writes excoriating letters and articles whenever someone dares to disagree with his theories. Or are the two genres so different that you can apply different standards?
>> Regards
>> Annette
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:17, Judy Thomson wrote:

> "Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table with
> family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
> versions.

Classic Japanese Movie "Rashoman" dramatised this brilliantly.
Paul

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:17, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> > "Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table with
> > family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
> > versions.
>
> Classic Japanese Movie "Rashoman" dramatised this brilliantly.
> Paul


Likewise Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria quartet. Each novel is the same incident, as seen and told by a different protagonist. By the time you read the last one, you have no idea what really happened.

Katy

  Sounds kinda The Sound and the Fury ish.
Sheffe

--- On Tue, 3/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction
To:
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 8:22 PM







 













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

>

>

> On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:17, Judy Thomson wrote:

>

> > "Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table with

> > family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the

> > versions.

>

> Classic Japanese Movie "Rashoman" dramatised this brilliantly.

> Paul



Likewise Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria quartet. Each novel is the same incident, as seen and told by a different protagonist. By the time you read the last one, you have no idea what really happened.



Katy

Dear Paul, Think I accidently sent an answer into singularity...

Yes, Roshoman and most Kurasawa (sp?) !



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 6:46:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction



On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:17, Judy Thomson wrote:

> "Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table
>with
>
> family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
> versions.

Classic Japanese Movie "Rashoman" dramatised this brilliantly.
Paul

Dear Katy, those were were my high school faves! The first 4-D novel(s). I
wanted to study Greek, again, when the character wrote that "greeting" in
sand....



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 7:22:37 PM
Subject: Re: Historical Fiction




--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:17, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> > "Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table
>with
>
> > family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
> > versions.
>
> Classic Japanese Movie "Rashoman" dramatised this brilliantly.
> Paul

Likewise Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria quartet. Each novel is the same
incident, as seen and told by a different protagonist. By the time you read the
last one, you have no idea what really happened.

Katy

Sorry Judy, don't understand what you mean, but I saw the post on the forum.
Paul

On 16 Mar 2011, at 13:05, Judy Thomson wrote:

> Dear Paul, Think I accidently sent an answer into singularity...
>
> Yes, Roshoman and most Kurasawa (sp?) !
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 6:46:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction
>
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:17, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
>> "Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table
>> with
>>
>> family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
>> versions.
>
> Classic Japanese Movie "Rashoman" dramatised this brilliantly.
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Susan" <shigginbotham2@...> wrote:
>
> I did devote a blog post to this subject, but it's Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs who first pointed out the fallacy of assuming that the "Richard Liveth Yet" comment was a reference to little Richard's precarious health. They discussed the subject at length in a June 1992 Ricardian article entitled, "'Richard Liveth Yet': An Old Myth."
>
> The comment appears in this context:
>
> "Sir, aftir the tyme of longe bareynesse,
> God first sent Anne, which signifyeth grace,
> In token that at her hertis hevynesse
> He as for bareynesse would fro hem chace.
> Harry, Edward, and Edmonde, eche is his place
> Succcedid; and after tweyn doughters cam
> Elizabeth and Margarete, and aftir William.
>
> "John aftir William nexte borne was,
> Whiche bothe he passid to Goddis grace:
> George was next, and after Thomas
> Borne was, which sone aftir did pace
> By the pathe of dethe into the heavenly place.
> Richard liveth yet; but the last of alle
> Was Ursula, to him God list calle."
>
> Earlier in the rhyme, Richard, Duke of York himself is spoken of as "Richard which yet liveth," not as a comment on his health but simply to contrast him with his dead ancestors.
<snip>

Carol responds:

I remember reading that same article, in which the English version is compared to the Latin one. The authors point out the limitations of the rhyme scheme of the English version, which perhaps necessitates such tiny snippets as "Richard liveth yet."

It's interesting (to me) that Henry is here referred to as "Harry" and does not seem to have died yet (though if I recall correctly, "Lord Henry" does seem to be dead in the Latin version. If my deduction is correct, the oldest son, Henry, would still have been alive in 1454, when Ursula was born (and died).

At any rate, what else could the poet have said about a small boy who was at the time somewhere around two? (Do we have a more precise date of composition for the poem than "1454 or later"?)

Carol, who thinks that far too much has been made of this little line, from which we can legitimately gather no more than we already know--that, unlike some of his brothers and one sister, Richard was alive when the poem was composed

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I remember reading that same article, in which the English version is >compared to the Latin one. The authors point out the limitations of >the rhyme scheme of the English version, which perhaps necessitates >such tiny snippets as "Richard liveth yet."
>
> It's interesting (to me) that Henry is here [in the rhyme about the >Duke of York's children] referred to as "Harry" and does not seem to >have died yet (though if I recall correctly, "Lord Henry" does seem to >be dead in the Latin version. If my deduction is correct, the oldest >son, Henry, would still have been alive in 1454, when Ursula was born >(and died).



But if Henry, the first-born son, was alive in 1454, he, not Edward, would have been the Duke's heir. He is never mentioned. Unless he was one of the ever-popular insane deformed creatures locked away in a secret room in a castle, where was he?

Katy

Hi, Paul!

I may have accidentally sent you something meant for Katy...! : D
(Lapse of digits and metacarpals, not unusual with my beady brain...)



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, March 16, 2011 8:31:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction


Sorry Judy, don't understand what you mean, but I saw the post on the forum.
Paul

On 16 Mar 2011, at 13:05, Judy Thomson wrote:

> Dear Paul, Think I accidently sent an answer into singularity...
>
> Yes, Roshoman and most Kurasawa (sp?) !
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 6:46:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Historical Fiction
>
>
>
> On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:17, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
>> "Daughter of Memory..." That's History for you. Sit around the dinner table
>> with
>>
>> family and ask for the "true" story of Aunt Sophia...and then count the
>> versions.
>
> Classic Japanese Movie "Rashoman" dramatised this brilliantly.
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hey, Katy!

Um, Prague? (Isn't that where the Golem lived? Or was that much earlier?)

"And what rough beast...etc." I love saying "slouches" out loud...

Cheers!
Judy,
just playing around



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, March 16, 2011 1:44:11 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records




--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I remember reading that same article, in which the English version is >compared
>to the Latin one. The authors point out the limitations of >the rhyme scheme of
>the English version, which perhaps necessitates >such tiny snippets as "Richard
>liveth yet."
>
> It's interesting (to me) that Henry is here [in the rhyme about the >Duke of
>York's children] referred to as "Harry" and does not seem to >have died yet
>(though if I recall correctly, "Lord Henry" does seem to >be dead in the Latin
>version. If my deduction is correct, the oldest >son, Henry, would still have
>been alive in 1454, when Ursula was born >(and died).

But if Henry, the first-born son, was alive in 1454, he, not Edward, would have
been the Duke's heir. He is never mentioned. Unless he was one of the
ever-popular insane deformed creatures locked away in a secret room in a castle,
where was he?


Katy

Annette:

> I used to adore reading science fiction in the 60s and 70s, and
> [skip] but now that I've "retired" I hope to start
> getting better at balancing all my different commitments.

Ann:

Lois McMaster Bujold -- any fifteenth-century buff will probably 1) enjoy and 2) be able to place the inspiration of THE CURSE OF CHALION. Sequel, PALADIN OF SOULS and, Same universe, THE HALLOWED HUNT.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Ann, I love her Miles Vorkosgan (sp?) series. I'll have to look for
those books. Thanks for letting us know about them.

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

> Lois McMaster Bujold -- any fifteenth-century buff will probably 1)
enjoy and 2) be able to place the inspiration of THE CURSE OF CHALION.
Sequel, PALADIN OF SOULS and, Same universe, THE HALLOWED HUNT.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>

Carol earlier:
<snip>
> > It's interesting (to me) that Henry is here [in the rhyme about the >Duke of York's children] referred to as "Harry" and does not seem to >have died yet (though if I recall correctly, "Lord Henry" does seem to >be dead in the Latin version. If my deduction is correct, the oldest >son, Henry, would still have been alive in 1454, when Ursula was born >(and died).
>
>
Katy responded:
> But if Henry, the first-born son, was alive in 1454, he, not Edward, would have been the Duke's heir. He is never mentioned. Unless he was one of the ever-popular insane deformed creatures locked away in a secret room in a castle, where was he?

Carol again:

I found a site with both the complete English version and the Latin version if anyone wants to compare them:
http://monasticmatrix.org/MatrixTextLibrary/mm-S11915-dugdalew-austin-ipswich.pdf
Although the stanza quoted earlier makes it sound as if Henry (like Edward and Edmund) is still alive, a later stanza (possibly added later?) refers to "lord Henry" (a courtesy title for the eldest son of a duke?) as dead: "My lord Henry God chosen hath to enherite heven blis/and left Edward to succeed temporally,/ now erle of Marche;/and Edmonde of Rutland sothly."

If we know when Edward and Edmund received their titles (clearly after Henry's death), we can provide an approximate date for the poem. (Anne's marriage is also mentioned, but that's not helpful since the poor child was married in 1447 at age eight.)

At any rate, it seems to me that Henry must have lived long enough to be spoken of as a lord--at least beyond infancy. If he died in 1454, as I'm guessing, he would have been eleven (and would perhaps have seen his little brother, Richard). (Think how different history might have been if he--or Edmund--had lived!)

Carol, wondering if anyone knows the year when Edward and Edmund became earls, which would probably be the year of Henry's death

In 1445, Richard, Duke of York, was negotiating with Charles VII for little Edward's marriage to Charles VII's daughter Madeline. He refers to Edward in a letter dated September 21, 1445, as his eldest son (moi filz aisne). (In the letter, York calls his son Edward of York, not the Earl of March.)

The letter is in Joseph Stevenson, ed., "Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI," vol. I, p. 160.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KGE83PwblQ0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=stevenson+letters+illustrative&source=bl&ots=RQv_3wpCOG&sig=1RnjKLmhj2fMqUN7WGqpT8IL51o&hl=en&ei=Ul2CTamsF6rk0gGp8pHmCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> <snip>
> > > It's interesting (to me) that Henry is here [in the rhyme about the >Duke of York's children] referred to as "Harry" and does not seem to >have died yet (though if I recall correctly, "Lord Henry" does seem to >be dead in the Latin version. If my deduction is correct, the oldest >son, Henry, would still have been alive in 1454, when Ursula was born >(and died).
> >
> >
> Katy responded:
> > But if Henry, the first-born son, was alive in 1454, he, not Edward, would have been the Duke's heir. He is never mentioned. Unless he was one of the ever-popular insane deformed creatures locked away in a secret room in a castle, where was he?
>
> Carol again:
>
> I found a site with both the complete English version and the Latin version if anyone wants to compare them:
> http://monasticmatrix.org/MatrixTextLibrary/mm-S11915-dugdalew-austin-ipswich.pdf
> Although the stanza quoted earlier makes it sound as if Henry (like Edward and Edmund) is still alive, a later stanza (possibly added later?) refers to "lord Henry" (a courtesy title for the eldest son of a duke?) as dead: "My lord Henry God chosen hath to enherite heven blis/and left Edward to succeed temporally,/ now erle of Marche;/and Edmonde of Rutland sothly."
>
> If we know when Edward and Edmund received their titles (clearly after Henry's death), we can provide an approximate date for the poem. (Anne's marriage is also mentioned, but that's not helpful since the poor child was married in 1447 at age eight.)
>
> At any rate, it seems to me that Henry must have lived long enough to be spoken of as a lord--at least beyond infancy. If he died in 1454, as I'm guessing, he would have been eleven (and would perhaps have seen his little brother, Richard). (Think how different history might have been if he--or Edmund--had lived!)
>
> Carol, wondering if anyone knows the year when Edward and Edmund became earls, which would probably be the year of Henry's death
>

I should have added that Cora Scofield in Vol. 1, pg. 10 n.4 of her biography of Edward IV mentions a letter of credence connected with the marriage negotiations in Hist. MSS Commission, Report 9, appendix, pt. II, p. 410 which refers to Edward as "Conte de la Marche." She dates the letter to 1445, though the Commission dates it to 1456.

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "Susan" <shigginbotham2@...> wrote:
>
> In 1445, Richard, Duke of York, was negotiating with Charles VII for little Edward's marriage to Charles VII's daughter Madeline. He refers to Edward in a letter dated September 21, 1445, as his eldest son (moi filz aisne). (In the letter, York calls his son Edward of York, not the Earl of March.)
>
> The letter is in Joseph Stevenson, ed., "Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI," vol. I, p. 160.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=KGE83PwblQ0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=stevenson+letters+illustrative&source=bl&ots=RQv_3wpCOG&sig=1RnjKLmhj2fMqUN7WGqpT8IL51o&hl=en&ei=Ul2CTamsF6rk0gGp8pHmCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
> Susan Higginbotham
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > <snip>
> > > > It's interesting (to me) that Henry is here [in the rhyme about the >Duke of York's children] referred to as "Harry" and does not seem to >have died yet (though if I recall correctly, "Lord Henry" does seem to >be dead in the Latin version. If my deduction is correct, the oldest >son, Henry, would still have been alive in 1454, when Ursula was born >(and died).
> > >
> > >
> > Katy responded:
> > > But if Henry, the first-born son, was alive in 1454, he, not Edward, would have been the Duke's heir. He is never mentioned. Unless he was one of the ever-popular insane deformed creatures locked away in a secret room in a castle, where was he?
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > I found a site with both the complete English version and the Latin version if anyone wants to compare them:
> > http://monasticmatrix.org/MatrixTextLibrary/mm-S11915-dugdalew-austin-ipswich.pdf
> > Although the stanza quoted earlier makes it sound as if Henry (like Edward and Edmund) is still alive, a later stanza (possibly added later?) refers to "lord Henry" (a courtesy title for the eldest son of a duke?) as dead: "My lord Henry God chosen hath to enherite heven blis/and left Edward to succeed temporally,/ now erle of Marche;/and Edmonde of Rutland sothly."
> >
> > If we know when Edward and Edmund received their titles (clearly after Henry's death), we can provide an approximate date for the poem. (Anne's marriage is also mentioned, but that's not helpful since the poor child was married in 1447 at age eight.)
> >
> > At any rate, it seems to me that Henry must have lived long enough to be spoken of as a lord--at least beyond infancy. If he died in 1454, as I'm guessing, he would have been eleven (and would perhaps have seen his little brother, Richard). (Think how different history might have been if he--or Edmund--had lived!)
> >
> > Carol, wondering if anyone knows the year when Edward and Edmund became earls, which would probably be the year of Henry's death
> >
>

this google book provides the answer for when edward probably gained his earldom. there is not much info on edmund. doyle sources his research with sidebars.
but it seems probable that both boys gained their titles in 1445 when their father returned from france.
The official baronage of England: showing the succession ..., Volume 3
 By James William Edmund Doyle
 
the other two volumes are also available via google books.
 
this url should be able to assist anyone who is trying to understand the heraldry described in the above mentioned book.
http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/index.htm
 
roslyn


--- On Thu, 3/17/11, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Fw: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records
To:
Received: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 2:14 PM


 



Carol earlier:
<snip>
> > It's interesting (to me) that Henry is here [in the rhyme about the >Duke of York's children] referred to as "Harry" and does not seem to >have died yet (though if I recall correctly, "Lord Henry" does seem to >be dead in the Latin version. If my deduction is correct, the oldest >son, Henry, would still have been alive in 1454, when Ursula was born >(and died).
>
>
Katy responded:
> But if Henry, the first-born son, was alive in 1454, he, not Edward, would have been the Duke's heir. He is never mentioned. Unless he was one of the ever-popular insane deformed creatures locked away in a secret room in a castle, where was he?

Carol again:

I found a site with both the complete English version and the Latin version if anyone wants to compare them:
http://monasticmatrix.org/MatrixTextLibrary/mm-S11915-dugdalew-austin-ipswich.pdf
Although the stanza quoted earlier makes it sound as if Henry (like Edward and Edmund) is still alive, a later stanza (possibly added later?) refers to "lord Henry" (a courtesy title for the eldest son of a duke?) as dead: "My lord Henry God chosen hath to enherite heven blis/and left Edward to succeed temporally,/ now erle of Marche;/and Edmonde of Rutland sothly."

If we know when Edward and Edmund received their titles (clearly after Henry's death), we can provide an approximate date for the poem. (Anne's marriage is also mentioned, but that's not helpful since the poor child was married in 1447 at age eight.)

At any rate, it seems to me that Henry must have lived long enough to be spoken of as a lord--at least beyond infancy. If he died in 1454, as I'm guessing, he would have been eleven (and would perhaps have seen his little brother, Richard). (Think how different history might have been if he--or Edmund--had lived!)

Carol, wondering if anyone knows the year when Edward and Edmund became earls, which would probably be the year of Henry's death

--- In , "Susan" <shigginbotham2@...> wrote:
>
> In 1445, Richard, Duke of York, was negotiating with Charles VII for little Edward's marriage to Charles VII's daughter Madeline. He refers to Edward in a letter dated September 21, 1445, as his eldest son (moi filz aisne). (In the letter, York calls his son Edward of York, not the Earl of March.)
>
> The letter is in Joseph Stevenson, ed., "Letters and papers illustrative of the wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI," vol. I, p. 160.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=KGE83PwblQ0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=stevenson+letters+illustrative&source=bl&ots=RQv_3wpCOG&sig=1RnjKLmhj2fMqUN7WGqpT8IL51o&hl=en&ei=Ul2CTamsF6rk0gGp8pHmCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Carol responds:

Thank you very much. I was completely unaware of this source, which I've now bookmarked. I thought at first that the letter might be misdated since there's no year on it, but since York left Rouen in October, 1445, it must be correct. However, it's odd that the duke would identify Jehanne (born in 1438) as being of a more suitable age for marriage to Edward than Magdalene, born in 1443, only a year after Edward (who, at not quite three years old, was also of a "very tender age"). I don't suppose that "Henri" could be mistranscribed as "Edouart" (even a son born in February 1441 would be a very young husband for Jehanne, to use the duke's spelling) by a transcriber who believed that Henry was dead at that time! (Obviously, I have no access to the original or even a photocopy.)

At any rate, this letter seems to answer my question--"my lord Henry" was apparently dead before the early months of 1445 when he would hav turned four. As for when Edward and Edmund became earls, it must have been sometime after April 1445 and before Ursula's death (1455?). that's still a ten-year range, though.

At some point I'll explore the "Letters and Papers" more thoroughly though all I have available is the truncated online version.

Carol, now wondering if anyone knows the source of that horrible portrait of the duke of York that makes him look like a skinny walrus and nothing at all like his youngest son, who supposedly resembled him

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you very much. I was completely unaware of this source, which I've now bookmarked. I thought at first that the letter might be misdated since there's no year on it, but since York left Rouen in October, 1445, it must be correct. However, it's odd that the duke would identify Jehanne (born in 1438) as being of a more suitable age for marriage to Edward than Magdalene, born in 1443, only a year after Edward (who, at not quite three years old, was also of a "very tender age"). I don't suppose that "Henri" could be mistranscribed as "Edouart" (even a son born in February 1441 would be a very young husband for Jehanne, to use the duke's spelling) by a transcriber who believed that Henry was dead at that time! (Obviously, I have no access to the original or even a photocopy.)


> Carol, now wondering if anyone knows the source of that horrible portrait of the duke of York that makes him look like a skinny walrus and nothing at all like his youngest son, who supposedly resembled him
>


As to why Jehanne, four years older than Edward, would have been chosen for his future bride rather than Magdalene, who was a year younger than Edward -- my thought was that it was for reproductive purposes. A boy can be fertile at age 12 or even younger, whereas pregnancy in a girl of that age would be very hazardous to both mother and child.

Katy

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much. I was completely unaware of this source, which I've now bookmarked. I thought at first that the letter might be misdated since there's no year on it, but since York left Rouen in October, 1445, it must be correct. However, it's odd that the duke would identify Jehanne (born in 1438) as being of a more suitable age for marriage to Edward than Magdalene, born in 1443, only a year after Edward (who, at not quite three years old, was also of a "very tender age"). I don't suppose that "Henri" could be mistranscribed as "Edouart" (even a son born in February 1441 would be a very young husband for Jehanne, to use the duke's spelling) by a transcriber who believed that Henry was dead at that time! (Obviously, I have no access to the original or even a photocopy.)
>
>
> > Carol, now wondering if anyone knows the source of that horrible portrait of the duke of York that makes him look like a skinny walrus and nothing at all like his youngest son, who supposedly resembled him
> >
>
>
> As to why Jehanne, four years older than Edward, would have been chosen for his future bride rather than Magdalene, who was a year younger than Edward -- my thought was that it was for reproductive purposes. A boy can be fertile at age 12 or even younger, whereas pregnancy in a girl of that age would be very hazardous to both mother and child.
>
> Katy
>



Just to clarify -- I know Edward was not 12 years old at the time these arrangements were made. But arranging for him to have an older bride could have been intended to make sure that the York lineage got perpetuated as early as possible, perhaps even when Edward was teetering on the edge of his teens.

Katy

Well, he had a thing for older women in the end. Your other post brings Margaret Beaufort to mind as a good example of getting pregnant too early.

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:41 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: Richard's Baptismal Records





--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much. I was completely unaware of this source, which I've now bookmarked. I thought at first that the letter might be misdated since there's no year on it, but since York left Rouen in October, 1445, it must be correct. However, it's odd that the duke would identify Jehanne (born in 1438) as being of a more suitable age for marriage to Edward than Magdalene, born in 1443, only a year after Edward (who, at not quite three years old, was also of a "very tender age"). I don't suppose that "Henri" could be mistranscribed as "Edouart" (even a son born in February 1441 would be a very young husband for Jehanne, to use the duke's spelling) by a transcriber who believed that Henry was dead at that time! (Obviously, I have no access to the original or even a photocopy.)
>
>
> > Carol, now wondering if anyone knows the source of that horrible portrait of the duke of York that makes him look like a skinny walrus and nothing at all like his youngest son, who supposedly resembled him
> >
>
>
> As to why Jehanne, four years older than Edward, would have been chosen for his future bride rather than Magdalene, who was a year younger than Edward -- my thought was that it was for reproductive purposes. A boy can be fertile at age 12 or even younger, whereas pregnancy in a girl of that age would be very hazardous to both mother and child.
>
> Katy
>

Just to clarify -- I know Edward was not 12 years old at the time these arrangements were made. But arranging for him to have an older bride could have been intended to make sure that the York lineage got perpetuated as early as possible, perhaps even when Edward was teetering on the edge of his teens.

Katy

Susan wrote:
>
> I should have added that Cora Scofield in Vol. 1, pg. 10 n.4 of her biography of Edward IV mentions a letter of credence connected with the marriage negotiations in Hist. MSS Commission, Report 9, appendix, pt. II, p. 410 which refers to Edward as "Conte de la Marche." She dates the letter to 1445, though the Commission dates it to 1456.

Carol responds:

Thank you for your diligence! I don't own Scofield's biography and have no way of accessing it at the moment.

1456 would make sense with regard to Edward's age, and he was definitely the Earl of March at that time, but I think York had his hands full with other matters (a power struggle with Margaret of Anjou) in that year. Marriage negotiations for Edward (much as they might have benefited the House of York in the long run), were probably the last thing on York's mind. Does Scofield explain the commission's dating of the letter? (If it was written from Rouen, 1456 can't be right.)

Carol

Scofield doesn't give a reason for rejecting the 1456 date, but I think she did so with very good reason. The other documents relating to the negotiations date to 1445, and as you said, York was persona non grata with Henry VI's government in 1456. And I don't think relations between England and France were particularly good at the time either.

Anyway, in his biography of Henry VI, Ralph Griffiths writes that Edward and Edmund were given their titles before September 1445. He cites Bibliotheque Nationale, n.a. fr. 5848 n. 389; BirmPL, Hampton MS 504039.

York's biographer, P. A. Johnson, says that the idea for the French marriage of Edward to one of Charles VII's girls originated with William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk.

T. B. Pugh in "Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, as the King's Lieutenant in France and Ireland" (in J. G. Rowe, ed., Aspects of Late Medieval Government and Society) theorizes that Edward was given his earldom at such a young age with his prospective French marriage in mind. He also notes that Edmund was given the lordship of St-Sauveur-Lendelin during that year.

If you're a member of the American branch (I'm assuming you're in the US), you can get Scofield (and Griffiths and Johnson) through the research library.

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Susan wrote:
> >
> > I should have added that Cora Scofield in Vol. 1, pg. 10 n.4 of her biography of Edward IV mentions a letter of credence connected with the marriage negotiations in Hist. MSS Commission, Report 9, appendix, pt. II, p. 410 which refers to Edward as "Conte de la Marche." She dates the letter to 1445, though the Commission dates it to 1456.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you for your diligence! I don't own Scofield's biography and have no way of accessing it at the moment.
>
> 1456 would make sense with regard to Edward's age, and he was definitely the Earl of March at that time, but I think York had his hands full with other matters (a power struggle with Margaret of Anjou) in that year. Marriage negotiations for Edward (much as they might have benefited the House of York in the long run), were probably the last thing on York's mind. Does Scofield explain the commission's dating of the letter? (If it was written from Rouen, 1456 can't be right.)
>
> Carol
>

Susan wrote:
>
> Scofield doesn't give a reason for rejecting the 1456 date, but I think she did so with very good reason. The other documents relating to the negotiations date to 1445, and as you said, York was persona non grata with Henry VI's government in 1456. And I don't think relations between England and France were particularly good at the time either.
>
> Anyway, in his biography of Henry VI, Ralph Griffiths writes that Edward and Edmund were given their titles before September 1445. He cites Bibliotheque Nationale, n.a. fr. 5848 n. 389; BirmPL, Hampton MS 504039.
>
> York's biographer, P. A. Johnson, says that the idea for the French marriage of Edward to one of Charles VII's girls originated with William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk.
>
> T. B. Pugh in "Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, as the King's Lieutenant in France and Ireland" (in J. G. Rowe, ed., Aspects of Late Medieval Government and Society) theorizes that Edward was given his earldom at such a young age with his prospective French marriage in mind. He also notes that Edmund was given the lordship of St-Sauveur-Lendelin during that year.
>
> If you're a member of the American branch (I'm assuming you're in the US), you can get Scofield (and Griffiths and Johnson) through the research library.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Susan. You've been very helpful. I've let my membership expire (though I did recently get around to rereading all my old Ricardians and throwing away the *many* issues that contained nothing about Richard or those close to him). I should rejoin at some point, but I'm cutting nonessential expenses at the moment. By the time I get around to reading all the books I need to read, I'll have to order them in large print!

Thanks again for your diligence. By the way, isn't Scofield rather dated? Is there a more recent, authoritative, reasonably objective biography of Edward? (By objective, I mean objective toward Richard.)

Carol

Scofield's dated in parts, but most of her research has held up remarkably well (in my opinion). I used her extensively in researching my novel about Margaret of Anjou and found her especially valuable for information about France and Burgundy during the earlier parts of the WOTR. Of course, if your primary interest is Richard, Scofield isn't as necessary or useful as she is for Edward.

The only more recent comprehensive biography of Edward IV that I know of is that by Charles Ross.

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Susan wrote:
> >
>
> Thanks again for your diligence. By the way, isn't Scofield rather dated? Is there a more recent, authoritative, reasonably objective biography of Edward? (By objective, I mean objective toward Richard.)
>
> Carol
>