Dissertation Help!

Hi Guys :)
My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!

I have spent the last 5 months researching as much information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's, Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country. he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!

Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor? being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.


Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely grateful for any ideas on this :)

Thanks! Emma

First, welcome to our group, Emma.

Regarding the precontract--since the Bishops and not just Stillington
had to agree that the precontract was valid, it would seem that there is
more evidence than just Stillington's say so. There are two recent books
that I would recommend for insight into Stillington and the precontract:

* ELEANOR: THE SECRET QUEEN by John Ashdown-Hill; and
* RICHARD III and the MURDER in the TOWER by Peter A. Hancock.
In addition, for overall context and thorough research, I heartily
recommend reading RICHARD III: THE MALIGNED KING by Annette Carson.

Also, what's your tutor's agenda? Why would he want you to prove
Richard's guilt. Do you aspire to be a lawyer?

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 , "emma.shaw15@..."
<emma.shaw15@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys :)
> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some advice and ideas.
Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History student at Bishop
Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final assignment is a
dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard III. Having been a Wars or
the Roses re-enactor since the age of 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I
initially wanted to focus on the maligned King and forming my own 'true
character' of Richard. My tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said
'that everyone was writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the
evidence and proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is
very hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>
> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much information I could
gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard guilty, I thought to focus
on the influences of others and the decisions Richard had to make from
this. eg The Woodville's, Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and
Beaufort's.
> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus regius, The role
of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has bothered me. He seems, to me
as a man who cannot be trusted. He was a pluralist, holding many church
offices across the country. he appears to be close to Edward IV and was
sent to convince the Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he
was also imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation in
placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>
> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington was in Brittany
or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor? being the spy on the
inside - so to speak. I've looked for evidence to suggest this. His
actions regarding the pretender then throw me off, I came to the
decision that Stillington liked the drama and to ascertain himself in
Richard's reign, claimed the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth
illegitimate.
>
>
> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely grateful for
any ideas on this :)
>
> Thanks! Emma
>

Proving Richard's guilt would be possible, even easy IF you quote a number of suppositions and wilful untruths by More as gospel.

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!



First, welcome to our group, Emma.

Regarding the precontract--since the Bishops and not just Stillington
had to agree that the precontract was valid, it would seem that there is
more evidence than just Stillington's say so. There are two recent books
that I would recommend for insight into Stillington and the precontract:

* ELEANOR: THE SECRET QUEEN by John Ashdown-Hill; and
* RICHARD III and the MURDER in the TOWER by Peter A. Hancock.
In addition, for overall context and thorough research, I heartily
recommend reading RICHARD III: THE MALIGNED KING by Annette Carson.

Also, what's your tutor's agenda? Why would he want you to prove
Richard's guilt. Do you aspire to be a lawyer?

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 , "emma.shaw15@..."
<emma.shaw15@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys :)
> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some advice and ideas.
Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History student at Bishop
Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final assignment is a
dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard III. Having been a Wars or
the Roses re-enactor since the age of 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I
initially wanted to focus on the maligned King and forming my own 'true
character' of Richard. My tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said
'that everyone was writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the
evidence and proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is
very hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>
> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much information I could
gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard guilty, I thought to focus
on the influences of others and the decisions Richard had to make from
this. eg The Woodville's, Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and
Beaufort's.
> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus regius, The role
of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has bothered me. He seems, to me
as a man who cannot be trusted. He was a pluralist, holding many church
offices across the country. he appears to be close to Edward IV and was
sent to convince the Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he
was also imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation in
placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>
> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington was in Brittany
or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor? being the spy on the
inside - so to speak. I've looked for evidence to suggest this. His
actions regarding the pretender then throw me off, I came to the
decision that Stillington liked the drama and to ascertain himself in
Richard's reign, claimed the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth
illegitimate.
>
>
> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely grateful for
any ideas on this :)
>
> Thanks! Emma
>

--- In , "emma.shaw15@..." <emma.shaw15@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys :)
> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!


If I were given this assignment, I think I would utilize the classic three elements of proving a case -- motive, means, and opportunity -- and explore each of these in relation to the thesis that Richard wanted to be king and was willing to take all the necessary steps to that goal.

I think you'll find a lot of information that exonerates Richard, and not much that would convict him.

Kay

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Proving Richard's guilt would be possible, even easy IF you quote a number of suppositions and wilful untruths by More as gospel.

Carol responds:

That's not *proving* his guilt, though. It's just hauling out the same old Tudor propaganda and calling it truth. Proof requires irrefutable evidence, which in this case doesn't exist for either side.

As for Stillington's being a Tudor agent, I seriously doubt it given Henry Tudor's treatment of him. I think he really believed (or knew) that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid and may have passed on that information to George of Clarence, resulting in his temporary imprisonment by Edward IV as a warning--and, sadly for George if no one else, in his execution.

Carol, wondering why on earth your teacher would want you to "prove" what too many historians already take for granted

Hi Emma, welcome!
 
I suppose the tone of the dissertation depends on the subject you are writing it into. I would say that maybe it would be interesting to collect and discuss all the other historians' opinions on how Richard could have killed the princes, giving it an historiographical perspective more than a legal one.
 
Cecilia

--- Mar 10/5/11, emma.shaw15@... <emma.shaw15@...> ha scritto:


Da: emma.shaw15@... <emma.shaw15@...>
Oggetto: Dissertation Help!
A:
Data: Martedì 10 maggio 2011, 16:13


 



Hi Guys :)
My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!

I have spent the last 5 months researching as much information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's, Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country. he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!

Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor? being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.

Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely grateful for any ideas on this :)

Thanks! Emma

hi emma
welcome to the group. there are very diverse opinons regarding richard and his actions in 1483. most members however, do believe richard to be innocent of most of the "crimes" that have been historically laid at richard's feet, with just cause/valid research.
 
your supposition regarding stillington is interesting. it is very possible he was a frequent turncoat.
 
politically and socially, to not just survive, but to advance in the 15th C, you buttered your bread on both sides..and hoped you didn't drop it. machavelli's rules for the prince, i believe is incredibly important reading to get into the mindset of the people of this era.
 
additionally, i believe there is only one record, commyns if i am correct said it was the bishop of bath who performed the secret wedding between e4 and woodville. i could be wrong. i'm writing from the top of my head here. given that only one source identifies the priest who performed the ceremony..i kinda/sorta question if stillington could be the priest.
 
stillington is definitely an interesting charactor to study. he was doing good ..politically and socially under e4. so why did he align with clarence? did he believe or know something about the rumoured illegitimacy of e4's birth? did he believe that clarence was the rightful heir to the throne, not only by birth, but also via being designated the heir of edward, son of h6?
 
being a member of the clergy certainly could be parlayed into reprieves for "errors of judgement". consider morton and richard's treatment of him. morton was an incredible turncoat. he was high ranking during h6's reign, and fawned his way back into rank under e4. richard wasn't buying morton's activities..but it would also have required a lot of fortitude to have demanded his execution..morton was after all a man of the cloth. both morton and hastings had been issuing orders in the young, uncrowned king's name...even while richard was the acknowledged protector of the realm. richard's biggest error was in trusting buckingham. i believe richard was "buying time" by giving buckingham custody of morton. richard needed the time to determine exactly what to do with the accursed priest.
 
good luck with your paper. if you want to contact me off list, i may be able to give you some info you don't yet have on stillington..as long as your paper isn't due immediately. i am quite busy, but may be able to squeeze in a bit of time to forward some background info on stillington.
 
roslyn
 
 
 


--- On Tue, 5/10/11, emma.shaw15@... <emma.shaw15@...> wrote:


From: emma.shaw15@... <emma.shaw15@...>
Subject: Dissertation Help!
To:
Received: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 10:13 AM


 



Hi Guys :)
My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!

I have spent the last 5 months researching as much information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's, Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country. he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!

Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor? being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.

Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely grateful for any ideas on this :)

Thanks! Emma

Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation? Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion! Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually caused the Boer War, for example?

I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label our theories as speculative, doncha think?

Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint, would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he was probably running around reacting to events and putting out fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
Cheers, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: emma.shaw15@...
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
Subject: Dissertation Help!



Hi Guys :)
My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!

I have spent the last 5 months researching as much information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's, Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country. he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!

Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor? being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.

Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely grateful for any ideas on this :)

Thanks! Emma

I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.

And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.

...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.

----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:

> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
> caused the Boer War, for example?
>
> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>
> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: emma.shaw15@...
>   To:
>   Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>   Subject: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>    
>   Hi Guys :)
>   My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>
>   I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>   I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>
>   Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>
>   Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
> grateful for any ideas on this :)
>
>   Thanks! Emma
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>

"Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in 1483 in
the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history of various nests
of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of shifting alliances and
influences - and by the way, I suggest you add the very important
William Hastings to your list. I think Richard, from his semi-detached
'outsider' standpoint, would have found it very hard to read the
undercurrents, who was in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what
to lose. I certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset
he was probably running around reacting to events and putting out fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only decisive action
would do, as anything less would have been taken as a sign of weakness
..."

I have thought for a while that this is an excellent proof by itself that Richard was never scheming to take over the throne--anyone who wanted to do it should have taken every opportunity to be at court, making friends, forming a faction, all that good stuff. 


Sheffe




>________________________________
>From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:46 PM
>Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
> 
>Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation? Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion! Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually caused the Boer War, for example?
>
>I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>
>Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint, would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he was probably running around reacting to events and putting out fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
>Cheers, Annette
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: emma.shaw15@...
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>Subject: Dissertation Help!
>
>Hi Guys :)
>My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>
>I have spent the last 5 months researching as much information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's, Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country. he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>
>Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor? being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>
>Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely grateful for any ideas on this :)
>
>Thanks! Emma
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

> I have thought for a while that this is an excellent proof by itself that Richard was never scheming to take over the throne--anyone who wanted to do it should have taken every opportunity to be at court, making friends, forming a faction, all that good stuff. 
>


And not have been clear up in Yorkshire when Edward IV died (some have suggested Richard was behind a poison plot) but rather poised somewhere nearby, if not at court, ready to pounce.

Kay

The offing of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings were murders by any standards, as no semblance of a trial was offered to them.
 
Perhaps an angle to take might be that Richard was swept along by a faction of the old nobility hostile to the Queen (Elizabeth)'s family, and with a vested interest in disinheriting them. Many previous Kings of England had used murder to eliminate rivals, and many more would do so in the next century, albeit with the veneer of legitimacy provided by show trials.
 
Particular attention can be given to the role of Richard's mother in shaping his actions; he was simply acting in what he saw as the interests of his family just as all the other nobles did. Her denouncing of Edward's illegitimacy was of far greater weight than that old precontract thing. 
 
Remember that the Lancastrian dynasty began with an act of murder;  that of an annointed King; yet the majority of the old nobility supported that house until its extinction.

--- On Tue, 10/5/11, Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:


From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011, 22:52


 



I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.

And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.

...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.

----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:

> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
> caused the Boer War, for example?
>
> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>
> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
> Cheers, Annette
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: emma.shaw15@...
>   To:
>   Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>   Subject: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>    
>   Hi Guys :)
>   My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>
>   I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>   I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>
>   Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>
>   Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
> grateful for any ideas on this :)
>
>   Thanks! Emma
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>

Except that they plotted against the legal head of state which between monarchs as Constable of England Richard was. An act against the Constable was treason, so Richard had every justification to act against them. And as far as we know legal process took place in Pontefract before their executions.
Paul



On 14 May 2011, at 00:24, david rayner wrote:

> The offing of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings were murders by any standards, as no semblance of a trial was offered to them.
>
> Perhaps an angle to take might be that Richard was swept along by a faction of the old nobility hostile to the Queen (Elizabeth)'s family, and with a vested interest in disinheriting them. Many previous Kings of England had used murder to eliminate rivals, and many more would do so in the next century, albeit with the veneer of legitimacy provided by show trials.
>
> Particular attention can be given to the role of Richard's mother in shaping his actions; he was simply acting in what he saw as the interests of his family just as all the other nobles did. Her denouncing of Edward's illegitimacy was of far greater weight than that old precontract thing.
>
> Remember that the Lancastrian dynasty began with an act of murder; that of an annointed King; yet the majority of the old nobility supported that house until its extinction.
>
> --- On Tue, 10/5/11, Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011, 22:52
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.
>
> And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.
>
> ...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
>
>> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
>> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
>> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
>> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
>> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
>> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
>> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
>> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
>> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
>> caused the Boer War, for example?
>>
>> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
>> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
>> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
>> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
>> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
>> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
>> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
>> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>>
>> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
>> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
>> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
>> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
>> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
>> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
>> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
>> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
>> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
>> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
>> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
>> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
>> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
>> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
>> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
>> Cheers, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: emma.shaw15@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>> Subject: Dissertation Help!
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guys :)
>> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
>> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
>> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
>> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
>> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
>> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
>> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
>> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
>> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
>> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
>> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>>
>> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
>> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
>> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
>> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
>> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
>> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
>> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
>> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
>> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
>> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
>> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
>> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
>> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>>
>> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
>> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
>> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
>> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
>> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
>> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
>> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>>
>> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
>> grateful for any ideas on this :)
>>
>> Thanks! Emma
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The problem here is the perception of the beholder, so I have to quibble with the

with the execution of Hastings
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!



Except that they plotted against the legal head of state which between monarchs as Constable of England Richard was. An act against the Constable was treason, so Richard had every justification to act against them. And as far as we know legal process took place in Pontefract before their executions.
Paul

On 14 May 2011, at 00:24, david rayner wrote:

> The offing of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings were murders by any standards, as no semblance of a trial was offered to them.
>
> Perhaps an angle to take might be that Richard was swept along by a faction of the old nobility hostile to the Queen (Elizabeth)'s family, and with a vested interest in disinheriting them. Many previous Kings of England had used murder to eliminate rivals, and many more would do so in the next century, albeit with the veneer of legitimacy provided by show trials.
>
> Particular attention can be given to the role of Richard's mother in shaping his actions; he was simply acting in what he saw as the interests of his family just as all the other nobles did. Her denouncing of Edward's illegitimacy was of far greater weight than that old precontract thing.
>
> Remember that the Lancastrian dynasty began with an act of murder; that of an annointed King; yet the majority of the old nobility supported that house until its extinction.
>
> --- On Tue, 10/5/11, Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011, 22:52
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.
>
> And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.
>
> ...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
>
>> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
>> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
>> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
>> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
>> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
>> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
>> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
>> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
>> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
>> caused the Boer War, for example?
>>
>> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
>> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
>> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
>> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
>> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
>> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
>> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
>> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>>
>> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
>> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
>> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
>> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
>> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
>> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
>> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
>> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
>> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
>> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
>> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
>> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
>> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
>> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
>> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
>> Cheers, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: emma.shaw15@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>> Subject: Dissertation Help!
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guys :)
>> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
>> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
>> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
>> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
>> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
>> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
>> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
>> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
>> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
>> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
>> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>>
>> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
>> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
>> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
>> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
>> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
>> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
>> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
>> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
>> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
>> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
>> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
>> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
>> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>>
>> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
>> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
>> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
>> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
>> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
>> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
>> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>>
>> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
>> grateful for any ideas on this :)
>>
>> Thanks! Emma
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Sorry, these laptops are so sensitive - once again I hit the 'send' key without meaning to!

As I was saying ....
The problem here is the perception of the beholder, so I have to quibble with the claim 'by any standards'. I will explain in a minute.
Cheers, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!



Except that they plotted against the legal head of state which between monarchs as Constable of England Richard was. An act against the Constable was treason, so Richard had every justification to act against them. And as far as we know legal process took place in Pontefract before their executions.
Paul

On 14 May 2011, at 00:24, david rayner wrote:

> The offing of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings were murders by any standards, as no semblance of a trial was offered to them.
>
> Perhaps an angle to take might be that Richard was swept along by a faction of the old nobility hostile to the Queen (Elizabeth)'s family, and with a vested interest in disinheriting them. Many previous Kings of England had used murder to eliminate rivals, and many more would do so in the next century, albeit with the veneer of legitimacy provided by show trials.
>
> Particular attention can be given to the role of Richard's mother in shaping his actions; he was simply acting in what he saw as the interests of his family just as all the other nobles did. Her denouncing of Edward's illegitimacy was of far greater weight than that old precontract thing.
>
> Remember that the Lancastrian dynasty began with an act of murder; that of an annointed King; yet the majority of the old nobility supported that house until its extinction.
>
> --- On Tue, 10/5/11, Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011, 22:52
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.
>
> And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.
>
> ...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
>
>> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
>> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
>> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
>> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
>> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
>> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
>> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
>> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
>> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
>> caused the Boer War, for example?
>>
>> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
>> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
>> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
>> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
>> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
>> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
>> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
>> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>>
>> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
>> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
>> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
>> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
>> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
>> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
>> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
>> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
>> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
>> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
>> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
>> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
>> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
>> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
>> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
>> Cheers, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: emma.shaw15@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>> Subject: Dissertation Help!
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guys :)
>> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
>> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
>> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
>> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
>> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
>> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
>> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
>> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
>> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
>> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
>> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>>
>> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
>> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
>> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
>> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
>> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
>> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
>> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
>> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
>> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
>> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
>> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
>> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
>> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>>
>> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
>> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
>> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
>> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
>> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
>> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
>> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>>
>> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
>> grateful for any ideas on this :)
>>
>> Thanks! Emma
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the Royal Council.

I think the opprobrium that surrounds such alleged murders as those of Edward IV's sons by Richard III, or that of Richard II by Henry IV, or Henry VI by Edward IV, or young Warwick by Henry VII, centres on their supposed guiltlessness and helplessness. (I have to keep repeating "alleged" and "supposed" because, although widely believed, they are still only assumptions). However, in all these cases there is/was a perception that their continued existence represented a personal threat to the ruler who allegedly had them killed. And since one of the principal responsibilities of a mediaeval ruler was to preserve and defend the security of the realm - which was personified in himself - there were occasions when other lives were taken if they were perceived to threaten his. Which is not the same as 'self-defence'. In other words, standards applied that we do not recognize today - such as the death penalty for what we would regard as petty theft - and we need to make a considerable effort to place someone like Richard in the context of those different standards.

The widespread taking of life is not a principle to which we adhere in the 21st century, hence the present agonising over the killing without trial of Osama bin Laden which in the Middle Ages would have been celebrated with bonfires in the streets. Even nowadays, if the would-be assassins of Princess Anne or Ronald Reagan had been killed in the process of being apprehended, there would have been an enquiry but I suspect the general public would not have called it murder. The difference being that the assassination attempts were made in public and we all saw that they were real.

In the case of Hastings, there are conflicting accounts of what happened, so it comes down to whose word you believe. Do you believe Richard as Protector, who was said by Mancini (who was in London at the time) to have announced that Hastings led a plot against his life? On balance, since I presume it would have been pretty foolhardy and pointless to have killed Hastings for no reason whatsoever, I think Richard probably did find out that Hastings was plotting against him. So I wouldn't place Hastings in the category of guiltless and helpless: I assume he was involved in political intrigue, and I assume he knew he was risking his life by doing so. As a Ricardian, I make no bones about preferring to believe what Richard said, although I don't insist that others have to. I do, however, expect those who accuse him of murder to produce proof, and to bear in mind that, as Paul says, whatever actions he took were as a mediaeval head of state.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!



Except that they plotted against the legal head of state which between monarchs as Constable of England Richard was. An act against the Constable was treason, so Richard had every justification to act against them. And as far as we know legal process took place in Pontefract before their executions.
Paul

On 14 May 2011, at 00:24, david rayner wrote:

> The offing of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings were murders by any standards, as no semblance of a trial was offered to them.
>
> Perhaps an angle to take might be that Richard was swept along by a faction of the old nobility hostile to the Queen (Elizabeth)'s family, and with a vested interest in disinheriting them. Many previous Kings of England had used murder to eliminate rivals, and many more would do so in the next century, albeit with the veneer of legitimacy provided by show trials.
>
> Particular attention can be given to the role of Richard's mother in shaping his actions; he was simply acting in what he saw as the interests of his family just as all the other nobles did. Her denouncing of Edward's illegitimacy was of far greater weight than that old precontract thing.
>
> Remember that the Lancastrian dynasty began with an act of murder; that of an annointed King; yet the majority of the old nobility supported that house until its extinction.
>
> --- On Tue, 10/5/11, Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011, 22:52
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.
>
> And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.
>
> ...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
>
>> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
>> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
>> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
>> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
>> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
>> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
>> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
>> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
>> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
>> caused the Boer War, for example?
>>
>> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
>> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
>> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
>> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
>> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
>> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
>> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
>> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>>
>> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
>> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
>> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
>> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
>> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
>> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
>> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
>> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
>> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
>> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
>> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
>> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
>> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
>> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
>> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
>> Cheers, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: emma.shaw15@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>> Subject: Dissertation Help!
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guys :)
>> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
>> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
>> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
>> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
>> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
>> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
>> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
>> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
>> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
>> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
>> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>>
>> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
>> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
>> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
>> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
>> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
>> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
>> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
>> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
>> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
>> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
>> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
>> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
>> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>>
>> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
>> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
>> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
>> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
>> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
>> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
>> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>>
>> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
>> grateful for any ideas on this :)
>>
>> Thanks! Emma
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite differently to the way they treat other kings.

I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.

I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except when I have read my own work of course!)

The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?

I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway, it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary' situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some kind of exceptional monster.

Brian W

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the Royal Council.
>
>

Well, (forgive me for the imprecision with dates), since Richard was told by Stillington - or in any case believed - that the Princes were bastards, he considered himself the rightful heir to the throne (the son of Clarence removed for his mental retardation). So, whatever Hastings was plotting, he was plotting against the King or king-to-be, hence Richard's decision to have him beheaded immediately once his plotting was discovered. From his point of view, Hastings' actions were high treason. This is how I see it, at least.
 
Cecilia

--- Sab 14/5/11, Annette Carson <email@...> ha scritto:


Da: Annette Carson <email@...>
Oggetto: Re: Dissertation Help!
A:
Data: Sabato 14 maggio 2011, 12:44


 



OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the Royal Council.

I think the opprobrium that surrounds such alleged murders as those of Edward IV's sons by Richard III, or that of Richard II by Henry IV, or Henry VI by Edward IV, or young Warwick by Henry VII, centres on their supposed guiltlessness and helplessness. (I have to keep repeating "alleged" and "supposed" because, although widely believed, they are still only assumptions). However, in all these cases there is/was a perception that their continued existence represented a personal threat to the ruler who allegedly had them killed. And since one of the principal responsibilities of a mediaeval ruler was to preserve and defend the security of the realm - which was personified in himself - there were occasions when other lives were taken if they were perceived to threaten his. Which is not the same as 'self-defence'. In other words, standards applied that we do not recognize today - such as the death penalty for what we would regard as petty theft - and we need
to make a considerable effort to place someone like Richard in the context of those different standards.

The widespread taking of life is not a principle to which we adhere in the 21st century, hence the present agonising over the killing without trial of Osama bin Laden which in the Middle Ages would have been celebrated with bonfires in the streets. Even nowadays, if the would-be assassins of Princess Anne or Ronald Reagan had been killed in the process of being apprehended, there would have been an enquiry but I suspect the general public would not have called it murder. The difference being that the assassination attempts were made in public and we all saw that they were real.

In the case of Hastings, there are conflicting accounts of what happened, so it comes down to whose word you believe. Do you believe Richard as Protector, who was said by Mancini (who was in London at the time) to have announced that Hastings led a plot against his life? On balance, since I presume it would have been pretty foolhardy and pointless to have killed Hastings for no reason whatsoever, I think Richard probably did find out that Hastings was plotting against him. So I wouldn't place Hastings in the category of guiltless and helpless: I assume he was involved in political intrigue, and I assume he knew he was risking his life by doing so. As a Ricardian, I make no bones about preferring to believe what Richard said, although I don't insist that others have to. I do, however, expect those who accuse him of murder to produce proof, and to bear in mind that, as Paul says, whatever actions he took were as a mediaeval head of state.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

Except that they plotted against the legal head of state which between monarchs as Constable of England Richard was. An act against the Constable was treason, so Richard had every justification to act against them. And as far as we know legal process took place in Pontefract before their executions.
Paul

On 14 May 2011, at 00:24, david rayner wrote:

> The offing of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings were murders by any standards, as no semblance of a trial was offered to them.
>
> Perhaps an angle to take might be that Richard was swept along by a faction of the old nobility hostile to the Queen (Elizabeth)'s family, and with a vested interest in disinheriting them. Many previous Kings of England had used murder to eliminate rivals, and many more would do so in the next century, albeit with the veneer of legitimacy provided by show trials.
>
> Particular attention can be given to the role of Richard's mother in shaping his actions; he was simply acting in what he saw as the interests of his family just as all the other nobles did. Her denouncing of Edward's illegitimacy was of far greater weight than that old precontract thing.
>
> Remember that the Lancastrian dynasty began with an act of murder; that of an annointed King; yet the majority of the old nobility supported that house until its extinction.
>
> --- On Tue, 10/5/11, Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011, 22:52
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.
>
> And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.
>
> ...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
>
>> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
>> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
>> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
>> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
>> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
>> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
>> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
>> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
>> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
>> caused the Boer War, for example?
>>
>> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
>> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
>> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
>> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
>> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
>> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
>> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
>> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>>
>> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
>> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
>> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
>> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
>> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
>> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
>> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
>> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
>> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
>> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
>> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
>> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
>> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
>> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
>> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
>> Cheers, Annette
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: emma.shaw15@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>> Subject: Dissertation Help!
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Guys :)
>> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
>> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
>> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
>> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
>> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
>> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
>> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
>> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
>> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
>> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
>> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>>
>> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
>> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
>> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
>> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
>> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
>> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
>> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
>> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
>> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
>> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
>> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
>> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
>> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>>
>> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
>> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
>> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
>> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
>> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
>> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
>> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>>
>> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
>> grateful for any ideas on this :)
>>
>> Thanks! Emma
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Even without the knowledge of the pre-contract Richard was legally Lord Protector and Constable, and therefore the legal head of state, so any action against him was treason, not matter how you spin it. So Richard had every right to execute him for plotting against him and Buckingham, threatening their lives and the peace and legitimacy of the realm.
Paul


On 14 May 2011, at 12:21, Cecilia Latella wrote:

> Well, (forgive me for the imprecision with dates), since Richard was told by Stillington - or in any case believed - that the Princes were bastards, he considered himself the rightful heir to the throne (the son of Clarence removed for his mental retardation). So, whatever Hastings was plotting, he was plotting against the King or king-to-be, hence Richard's decision to have him beheaded immediately once his plotting was discovered. From his point of view, Hastings' actions were high treason. This is how I see it, at least.
>
> Cecilia
>
> --- Sab 14/5/11, Annette Carson <email@...> ha scritto:
>
>
> Da: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Oggetto: Re: Dissertation Help!
> A:
> Data: Sabato 14 maggio 2011, 12:44
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the Royal Council.
>
> I think the opprobrium that surrounds such alleged murders as those of Edward IV's sons by Richard III, or that of Richard II by Henry IV, or Henry VI by Edward IV, or young Warwick by Henry VII, centres on their supposed guiltlessness and helplessness. (I have to keep repeating "alleged" and "supposed" because, although widely believed, they are still only assumptions). However, in all these cases there is/was a perception that their continued existence represented a personal threat to the ruler who allegedly had them killed. And since one of the principal responsibilities of a mediaeval ruler was to preserve and defend the security of the realm - which was personified in himself - there were occasions when other lives were taken if they were perceived to threaten his. Which is not the same as 'self-defence'. In other words, standards applied that we do not recognize today - such as the death penalty for what we would regard as petty theft - and we need
> to make a considerable effort to place someone like Richard in the context of those different standards.
>
> The widespread taking of life is not a principle to which we adhere in the 21st century, hence the present agonising over the killing without trial of Osama bin Laden which in the Middle Ages would have been celebrated with bonfires in the streets. Even nowadays, if the would-be assassins of Princess Anne or Ronald Reagan had been killed in the process of being apprehended, there would have been an enquiry but I suspect the general public would not have called it murder. The difference being that the assassination attempts were made in public and we all saw that they were real.
>
> In the case of Hastings, there are conflicting accounts of what happened, so it comes down to whose word you believe. Do you believe Richard as Protector, who was said by Mancini (who was in London at the time) to have announced that Hastings led a plot against his life? On balance, since I presume it would have been pretty foolhardy and pointless to have killed Hastings for no reason whatsoever, I think Richard probably did find out that Hastings was plotting against him. So I wouldn't place Hastings in the category of guiltless and helpless: I assume he was involved in political intrigue, and I assume he knew he was risking his life by doing so. As a Ricardian, I make no bones about preferring to believe what Richard said, although I don't insist that others have to. I do, however, expect those who accuse him of murder to produce proof, and to bear in mind that, as Paul says, whatever actions he took were as a mediaeval head of state.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
> Except that they plotted against the legal head of state which between monarchs as Constable of England Richard was. An act against the Constable was treason, so Richard had every justification to act against them. And as far as we know legal process took place in Pontefract before their executions.
> Paul
>
> On 14 May 2011, at 00:24, david rayner wrote:
>
>> The offing of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings were murders by any standards, as no semblance of a trial was offered to them.
>>
>> Perhaps an angle to take might be that Richard was swept along by a faction of the old nobility hostile to the Queen (Elizabeth)'s family, and with a vested interest in disinheriting them. Many previous Kings of England had used murder to eliminate rivals, and many more would do so in the next century, albeit with the veneer of legitimacy provided by show trials.
>>
>> Particular attention can be given to the role of Richard's mother in shaping his actions; he was simply acting in what he saw as the interests of his family just as all the other nobles did. Her denouncing of Edward's illegitimacy was of far greater weight than that old precontract thing.
>>
>> Remember that the Lancastrian dynasty began with an act of murder; that of an annointed King; yet the majority of the old nobility supported that house until its extinction.
>>
>> --- On Tue, 10/5/11, Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
>> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>> To:
>> Date: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011, 22:52
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.
>>
>> And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.
>>
>> ...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
>> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>> To:
>>
>>> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
>>> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
>>> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
>>> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
>>> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
>>> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
>>> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
>>> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
>>> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
>>> caused the Boer War, for example?
>>>
>>> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
>>> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
>>> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
>>> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
>>> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
>>> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
>>> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
>>> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
>>>
>>> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
>>> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
>>> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
>>> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
>>> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
>>> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
>>> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
>>> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
>>> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
>>> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
>>> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
>>> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
>>> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
>>> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
>>> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
>>> Cheers, Annette
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: emma.shaw15@...
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
>>> Subject: Dissertation Help!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Guys :)
>>> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
>>> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
>>> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
>>> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
>>> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
>>> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
>>> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
>>> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
>>> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
>>> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
>>> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
>>>
>>> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
>>> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
>>> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
>>> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
>>> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
>>> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
>>> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
>>> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
>>> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
>>> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
>>> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
>>> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
>>> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
>>> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
>>>
>>> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
>>> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
>>> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
>>> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
>>> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
>>> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
>>> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
>>> grateful for any ideas on this :)
>>>
>>> Thanks! Emma
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Well said Brian.
You haven't mentioned all the "judicial murders" by the "wonderful" Tudors, just as bad, if not worse, than anything Richard is accused of.
Anne Boleyn springs to mind. "I can't father a son so she must be a witch and an adulteress. Not my fault. Chop off her head!"
What a nice guy that Henry was!
Paul

On 14 May 2011, at 12:06, Brian wrote:

> I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite differently to the way they treat other kings.
>
> I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
>
> I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except when I have read my own work of course!)
>
> The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
>
> I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway, it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary' situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some kind of exceptional monster.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>>
>> OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the Royal Council.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to see your list.  Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me off-list?
 
The 'newbie',
 
Margie


--- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:


From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM


 



I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite differently to the way they treat other kings.

I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.

I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except when I have read my own work of course!)

The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?

I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway, it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary' situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some kind of exceptional monster.

Brian W

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the Royal Council.
>
>

Just off-hand, there is Richard's own close family in 1499, 1513 and 1541 - then Viscountess Rochford, who was legally insane. Fewer such cases after 1547, for some reason ............

----- Original Message -----
From: MD Deck
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!



I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to see your list. Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me off-list?

The 'newbie',

Margie

--- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:

From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM



I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite differently to the way they treat other kings.

I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.

I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except when I have read my own work of course!)

The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?

I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway, it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary' situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some kind of exceptional monster.

Brian W

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the Royal Council.
>
>

--- In , Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
>
> Well, (forgive me for the imprecision with dates), since Richard was told by Stillington - or in any case believed - that the Princes were bastards, he considered himself the rightful heir to the throne (the son of Clarence removed for his mental retardation).


Forgive a quibble, but the idea that Clarence's son, Edward, the Earl of Warwick, was mentally deficient, widespread among historians (which sometimes is a matter of one person saying something and a bunch of others dittoing) that idea seems to rest upon one comment made about him late in his short life.

Hall said, if I recall correctly, that young Warwick couldn't tell a cock from a capon, or something similar. That may well mean that he was addled, to continue the chicken analogy, but he was a prisoner in the Tower of London, under who knows what conditions, from age 10 till he was executed at age 24. He may have entered the tender mercies of Henry VII perfectly normal and been reduced to an imbecile or apathetic depression by his confinement and treatment. In fact, that is what Hall suggests: "Being kept in the Tower from his tender age, that is to say from his first year of the kyng to this xv. year, out of all company of men & sight of beasts, in so much that [Warwick] could not discern a Goose from a Capon."

Kay

Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree with
the verdict, the executions were legal.

Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More abandoned
the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to see
it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
American Branch website here
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .

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 , MD Deck
<mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to
see your list. Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
off-list?
> Â
> The 'newbie',
> Â
> Margie
>
>
> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Brian wainwright.brian@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
differently to the way they treat other kings.
>
> I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
>
> I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except
when I have read my own work of course!)
>
> The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as
he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
>
> I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway,
it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some
kind of exceptional monster.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
wrote:
> >
> > OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
Royal Council.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree with everything you have said Annette. On the subject of Hastings, he must have been plotting something. In his book" Richard 111 and the Murder in the Tower" Peter Hancock makes an excellent case for Catesby having told Richard about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler and that Stillington only confirms what Catesby has said. His reason for Hastings' execution is that Richard was angry that Hastings hadn't told him what he knew.

While I think Richard would have been angry I don't think he would have been angry enough to execute him.Imprison him maybe but not execution. There must have been something else. Either he was plotting to get rid of Richard as Protector, a role that he could then take over or the sainted Lady Margaret Beaufort and Stanley had implicated him in their plot to put Tudor on the throne. Though I don't think that Hastings would be keen to put Tudor on the throne,I am sure his motivation would have been saving the throne for Edward V.

There has been some speculation (think it was Jenny Powys Lybbe)that Catesby was involved in plotting with Lady Margaret. Didn't Richard make Stanley responsible for her after Hastings' execution? Peter Hancock says that he thinks that Catesby thought that somehow the Stanleys would save him after Bosworth but as we know they didn't.

Mary

--- In , "Annette Carson"email@...> wrote:
>
> OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the Royal Council.
>
> I think the opprobrium that surrounds such alleged murders as those of Edward IV's sons by Richard III, or that of Richard II by Henry IV, or Henry VI by Edward IV, or young Warwick by Henry VII, centres on their supposed guiltlessness and helplessness. (I have to keep repeating "alleged" and "supposed" because, although widely believed, they are still only assumptions). However, in all these cases there is/was a perception that their continued existence represented a personal threat to the ruler who allegedly had them killed. And since one of the principal responsibilities of a mediaeval ruler was to preserve and defend the security of the realm - which was personified in himself - there were occasions when other lives were taken if they were perceived to threaten his. Which is not the same as 'self-defence'. In other words, standards applied that we do not recognize today - such as the death penalty for what we would regard as petty theft - and we need to make a considerable effort to place someone like Richard in the context of those different standards.
>
> The widespread taking of life is not a principle to which we adhere in the 21st century, hence the present agonising over the killing without trial of Osama bin Laden which in the Middle Ages would have been celebrated with bonfires in the streets. Even nowadays, if the would-be assassins of Princess Anne or Ronald Reagan had been killed in the process of being apprehended, there would have been an enquiry but I suspect the general public would not have called it murder. The difference being that the assassination attempts were made in public and we all saw that they were real.
>
> In the case of Hastings, there are conflicting accounts of what happened, so it comes down to whose word you believe. Do you believe Richard as Protector, who was said by Mancini (who was in London at the time) to have announced that Hastings led a plot against his life? On balance, since I presume it would have been pretty foolhardy and pointless to have killed Hastings for no reason whatsoever, I think Richard probably did find out that Hastings was plotting against him. So I wouldn't place Hastings in the category of guiltless and helpless: I assume he was involved in political intrigue, and I assume he knew he was risking his life by doing so. As a Ricardian, I make no bones about preferring to believe what Richard said, although I don't insist that others have to. I do, however, expect those who accuse him of murder to produce proof, and to bear in mind that, as Paul says, whatever actions he took were as a mediaeval head of state.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>
> Except that they plotted against the legal head of state which between monarchs as Constable of England Richard was. An act against the Constable was treason, so Richard had every justification to act against them. And as far as we know legal process took place in Pontefract before their executions.
> Paul
>
> On 14 May 2011, at 00:24, david rayner wrote:
>
> > The offing of Rivers, Vaughan, Grey and Hastings were murders by any standards, as no semblance of a trial was offered to them.
> >
> > Perhaps an angle to take might be that Richard was swept along by a faction of the old nobility hostile to the Queen (Elizabeth)'s family, and with a vested interest in disinheriting them. Many previous Kings of England had used murder to eliminate rivals, and many more would do so in the next century, albeit with the veneer of legitimacy provided by show trials.
> >
> > Particular attention can be given to the role of Richard's mother in shaping his actions; he was simply acting in what he saw as the interests of his family just as all the other nobles did. Her denouncing of Edward's illegitimacy was of far greater weight than that old precontract thing.
> >
> > Remember that the Lancastrian dynasty began with an act of murder; that of an annointed King; yet the majority of the old nobility supported that house until its extinction.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 10/5/11, Angie Telepenko <gooble@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Angie Telepenko <gooble@...>
> > Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> > To:
> > Date: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011, 22:52
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree that the assignment may seem ridiculous. But sometimes the intent is to get you to think outside the box, to force yourself to see a different point of view. I was a journalism student 30 years ago, and I remember being assigned an essay where we were to argue that jeans were only a fad.
> >
> > And if it gets people to do research and find more facts than they knew before, then at least they've learned something, right? I also have always believed that the only thing Richard may have been guilty of was a bit of paranoia, but in those times I'm sure everyone was paranoid and had a right to be.
> >
> > ...looking forward to Annette's book which I just ordered from Chapters-Indigo.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> > Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:46 pm
> > Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> > To:
> >
> >> Hi Emma, and welcome from me too. I must admit I share Joan's
> >> concern about the usage of the words 'evidence' and 'prove' at
> >> your university. Prove Richard guilty of what? Usurpation?
> >> Murder? Being a bad king? You could write 10,000 words (or at
> >> least I could) on each of those topics and still end up not
> >> proving anything either way, because there is no evidence from
> >> which anyone can derive any proof - it's all just opinion!
> >> Indeed, I doubt whether anyone could ever prove what really
> >> happened as recently as a hundred years ago - what actually
> >> caused the Boer War, for example?
> >>
> >> I am always alarmed by historians claiming they know what
> >> happened five centuries ago based on a few documents and
> >> chronicles. Then they form a whole edifice of reasoning and
> >> supposition, write books about it, and then the rest of us poor
> >> mortals have to unravel the mass of speculation from the small
> >> kernels of fact hidden somewhere inside. I have nothing against
> >> speculation - I do it, we all do it - but it's vital to label
> >> our theories as speculative, doncha think?
> >>
> >> Of course you are right that Richard arrived at Westminster in
> >> 1483 in the middle of a royal court that had a 20-year history
> >> of various nests of intrigue, with magnates wielding networks of
> >> shifting alliances and influences - and by the way, I suggest
> >> you add the very important William Hastings to your list. I
> >> think Richard, from his semi-detached 'outsider' standpoint,
> >> would have found it very hard to read the undercurrents, who was
> >> in whose pockets, who had what to gain and what to lose. I
> >> certainly take the view that for the most part at the outset he
> >> was probably running around reacting to events and putting out
> >> fires. A very steep learning curve, in a world where only
> >> decisive action would do, as anything less would have been taken
> >> as a sign of weakness ..... I rather think Buckingham may have
> >> appealed to Richard because he didn't hold any offices under
> >> Edward IV and may perhaps have appeared not to have an agenda.
> >> Cheers, Annette
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: emma.shaw15@...
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:13 PM
> >> Subject: Dissertation Help!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Guys :)
> >> My name's Emma & I joined this group in hope of some
> >> advice and ideas. Im currently a 3rd year, Education and History
> >> student at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln. My final
> >> assignment is a dissertation, which I chose to do on Richard
> >> III. Having been a Wars or the Roses re-enactor since the age of
> >> 9(im now 21)and a Yorkist! I initially wanted to focus on the
> >> maligned King and forming my own 'true character' of Richard. My
> >> tutor, being the wonderful man he is = l said 'that everyone was
> >> writing that!' Sigh. He suggested looking at the evidence and
> >> proving Richard guilty. - to write 6000 words on this is very
> >> hard! I think I may just be too conditioned!
> >>
> >> I have spent the last 5 months researching as much
> >> information I could gather. Instead of writing to prove Richard
> >> guilty, I thought to focus on the influences of others and the
> >> decisions Richard had to make from this. eg The Woodville's,
> >> Neville's, Stanley's, Buckingham, Tudor and Beaufort's.
> >> I also wanted to raise an idea regarding the titulus
> >> regius, The role of Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath has
> >> bothered me. He seems, to me as a man who cannot be trusted. He
> >> was a pluralist, holding many church offices across the country.
> >> he appears to be close to Edward IV and was sent to convince the
> >> Duke of Britanny to offer up Henry Tudor. Yet he was also
> >> imprisoned for associating with Clarence, before Henry VII
> >> claimed success at Bosworth and finally with his participation
> >> in placing Lambert Simnel on the throne. very confusing!
> >>
> >> Would it be too wrong to suggest that when Stillington
> >> was in Brittany or perhaps France, that he allied with Tudor?
> >> being the spy on the inside - so to speak. I've looked for
> >> evidence to suggest this. His actions regarding the pretender
> >> then throw me off, I came to the decision that Stillington liked
> >> the drama and to ascertain himself in Richard's reign, claimed
> >> the marriage of Edward and Elizabeth illegitimate.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the long winded message!I would be sincerely
> >> grateful for any ideas on this :)
> >>
> >> Thanks! Emma
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Though based upon nothing more concrete than imagination, I've pictured the young Earl to have been a stammerer, as in The King's Speech. 

This would show up in early childhood, and might account for an appearance of slow wittedness. Stammerers were regarded badly - mad, stupid, socially challenged. And very annoying to the impatient. As no one understood the pathology, poor Edward would have been dealt with in horrible ignorance. 

Richard and Anne served Edward with especial kindness; as Duke, Richard retained one Alice Burgh of Pontefract (also believed by some to have been mother to John of Gloucestre/Pomfret) to help in Edward's care. Richard briefly named him as heir, perhaps as a concession to his queen's fondness for the child, but after her death, the King chose John de la Pole, an older and more suitable candidate.

Conjecture, but based upon such facts as I've gathered over the years....

Judy


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!


 


--- In , Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
>
> Well, (forgive me for the imprecision with dates), since Richard was told by Stillington - or in any case believed - that the Princes were bastards, he considered himself the rightful heir to the throne (the son of Clarence removed for his mental retardation).

Forgive a quibble, but the idea that Clarence's son, Edward, the Earl of Warwick, was mentally deficient, widespread among historians (which sometimes is a matter of one person saying something and a bunch of others dittoing) that idea seems to rest upon one comment made about him late in his short life.

Hall said, if I recall correctly, that young Warwick couldn't tell a cock from a capon, or something similar. That may well mean that he was addled, to continue the chicken analogy, but he was a prisoner in the Tower of London, under who knows what conditions, from age 10 till he was executed at age 24. He may have entered the tender mercies of Henry VII perfectly normal and been reduced to an imbecile or apathetic depression by his confinement and treatment. In fact, that is what Hall suggests: "Being kept in the Tower from his tender age, that is to say from his first year of the kyng to this xv. year, out of all company of men & sight of beasts, in so much that [Warwick] could not discern a Goose from a Capon."

Kay

I have had a search for my original list, but I can't find it. So, working from memory:

1399, the Earl of Wiltshire, Bushey and Green were summarily executed outside the walls of Bristol by Henry Bolingbroke,without any authority at all. Sir John Russell would have suffered similarly, but was spared because he went temporarily insane.

1399, Sir Piers Legh, summarily executed at Chester for 'oppressing the people' by Henry Bolingbroke (who had just done a 'havoc' on the people of Cheshire. No sense of irony, some people.)

1405, Archbishop Scrope, the Earl Marshal and Sir William Plumpton, executed after drumhead trials. They had been in arms, but had dispersed their followers and agreed to negotiate with Westmorland. Henry IV ordered their deaths.

1405, Henry IV, just outside York ordered a man summarily executed for predicting he would come to no good.

(I omit the various Welsh people summarily executed 1400-1412ish as one could reasonably argue they were taken in arms against the crown. Though I suspect some weren't.)

1469, Warwick, without any authority I can discern, summarily executed the Earl of Pembroke (Herbert), Herbert's brother, Earl Rivers and Sir John Woodville. Apparently for the crime of fighting Warwick's rebel followers (Herberts) or for being Woodvilles (Rivers and son.)

1470, Edward IV summarily executed Lord Welles and Sir Thomas Dymmock. Though these men had been involved in disorders in Lincolnshire, and possibly treason, they had surrendered to him. They received no kind of trial, albeit Welles' son was in the field against Edward.

I think there were some more, but these are all I can recall off the top of my head. Anyway, the point is summary executions were not something invented by Richard III.

Brian W


'--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to see your list.  Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me off-list?
>  
> The 'newbie',
>  
> Margie
>
>
>

Thanks for searching and for this great summary...
 
Margie


--- On Sun, 5/15/11, Brian <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:


From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Sunday, May 15, 2011, 5:49 AM


 



I have had a search for my original list, but I can't find it. So, working from memory:

1399, the Earl of Wiltshire, Bushey and Green were summarily executed outside the walls of Bristol by Henry Bolingbroke,without any authority at all. Sir John Russell would have suffered similarly, but was spared because he went temporarily insane.

1399, Sir Piers Legh, summarily executed at Chester for 'oppressing the people' by Henry Bolingbroke (who had just done a 'havoc' on the people of Cheshire. No sense of irony, some people.)

1405, Archbishop Scrope, the Earl Marshal and Sir William Plumpton, executed after drumhead trials. They had been in arms, but had dispersed their followers and agreed to negotiate with Westmorland. Henry IV ordered their deaths.

1405, Henry IV, just outside York ordered a man summarily executed for predicting he would come to no good.

(I omit the various Welsh people summarily executed 1400-1412ish as one could reasonably argue they were taken in arms against the crown. Though I suspect some weren't.)

1469, Warwick, without any authority I can discern, summarily executed the Earl of Pembroke (Herbert), Herbert's brother, Earl Rivers and Sir John Woodville. Apparently for the crime of fighting Warwick's rebel followers (Herberts) or for being Woodvilles (Rivers and son.)

1470, Edward IV summarily executed Lord Welles and Sir Thomas Dymmock. Though these men had been involved in disorders in Lincolnshire, and possibly treason, they had surrendered to him. They received no kind of trial, albeit Welles' son was in the field against Edward.

I think there were some more, but these are all I can recall off the top of my head. Anyway, the point is summary executions were not something invented by Richard III.

Brian W

'--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to see your list.  Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me off-list?
>  
> The 'newbie',
>  
> Margie
>
>
>

Hi Joan:
 
Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some deeper reading.  To be perfectly honest, not having a good education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII.  I have a lot of 'catching up' to do....
 
Margie

--- On Sat, 5/14/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:


From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 1:25 PM


 



Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree with
the verdict, the executions were legal.

Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More abandoned
the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to see
it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
American Branch website here
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .

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 , MD Deck
<mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to
see your list. Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
off-list?
> Â
> The 'newbie',
> Â
> Margie
>
>
> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Brian wainwright.brian@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
differently to the way they treat other kings.
>
> I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
>
> I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except
when I have read my own work of course!)
>
> The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as
he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
>
> I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway,
it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some
kind of exceptional monster.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
wrote:
> >
> > OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
Royal Council.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joan:
>  
> Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some deeper reading.  To be perfectly honest, not having a good education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII.  I have a lot of 'catching up' to do....
>  
> Margie


I recommend Richard Marius's biography of More called, not surprisingly, Thomas More, A Biography. You'll learn a lot about the personality and character of "the sainted More."

Kay

Oh not ridiculous, please. Great drama like Shakespeare, but history? Give me a break!!
Paul

On 15 May 2011, at 18:47, MD Deck wrote:

> Hi Joan:
>
> Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some deeper reading. To be perfectly honest, not having a good education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII. I have a lot of 'catching up' to do....
>
> Margie
>
> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 1:25 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
> and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree with
> the verdict, the executions were legal.
>
> Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
> stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More abandoned
> the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
> Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
> typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
> seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
> make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to see
> it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
> American Branch website here
> <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .
>
> 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 , MD Deck
> <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>>
>> I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to
> see your list. Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
> off-list?
>> Â
>> The 'newbie',
>> Â
>> Margie
>>
>>
>> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@... wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Brian wainwright.brian@...
>> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>> To:
>> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>> I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
> differently to the way they treat other kings.
>>
>> I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
> Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
>>
>> I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
> summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except
> when I have read my own work of course!)
>>
>> The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
> therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as
> he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
> of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
> historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
> crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
>>
>> I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
> the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway,
> it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
> Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
> situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some
> kind of exceptional monster.
>>
>> Brian W
>>
>> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
> actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
> individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
> Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
> Royal Council.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Dear Margie,

I fear I must take exception at "perfectly ridiculous." Both play and movie were brilliantly written, directed, and performed. This is tantamount to dismissing Shakespeare because we disagree with his historical biases.

Regards,
Judy Gerard Thomson



________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!


 
Hi Joan:
 
Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some deeper reading.  To be perfectly honest, not having a good education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII.  I have a lot of 'catching up' to do....
 
Margie

--- On Sat, 5/14/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:

From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 1:25 PM

 

Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree with
the verdict, the executions were legal.

Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More abandoned
the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to see
it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
American Branch website here
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .

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 , MD Deck
<mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to
see your list. Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
off-list?
> Â
> The 'newbie',
> Â
> Margie
>
>
> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Brian wainwright.brian@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
differently to the way they treat other kings.
>
> I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
>
> I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except
when I have read my own work of course!)
>
> The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as
he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
>
> I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway,
it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some
kind of exceptional monster.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
wrote:
> >
> > OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
Royal Council.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 
To be clear, I actually enjoyed the film.  The writing was wonderful.
 
I feel the same way about Lion in Winter-- right at the top of my list of all time favorites because it is so brilliantly done--no matter any looseness that may have been taken with 'history'.

--- On Sun, 5/15/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To: "" <>
Date: Sunday, May 15, 2011, 1:56 PM


 



Dear Margie,

I fear I must take exception at "perfectly ridiculous." Both play and movie were brilliantly written, directed, and performed. This is tantamount to dismissing Shakespeare because we disagree with his historical biases.

Regards,
Judy Gerard Thomson

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

 
Hi Joan:
 
Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some deeper reading.  To be perfectly honest, not having a good education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII.  I have a lot of 'catching up' to do....
 
Margie

--- On Sat, 5/14/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:

From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 1:25 PM

 

Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree with
the verdict, the executions were legal.

Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More abandoned
the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to see
it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
American Branch website here
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .

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 , MD Deck
<mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to
see your list. Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
off-list?
> Â
> The 'newbie',
> Â
> Margie
>
>
> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Brian wainwright.brian@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
differently to the way they treat other kings.
>
> I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
>
> I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except
when I have read my own work of course!)
>
> The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as
he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
>
> I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway,
it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some
kind of exceptional monster.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
wrote:
> >
> > OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
Royal Council.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, Lion in Winter....

"What family doesn't have its ups and downs?"
or
"There'll be pork in the trees, come morning!"

The Lark, Becket, and Luther were of that general playwriting era. Earlier, there was Maxwell Anderson's poignant Richard and Anne (Anderson, I believe, also wrote Anne of the Thousand Days; R&A wasn't published 'til many years later). Though sometimes very convoluted, I also recommend the plays of Tom Stoppard; Arcadia is my personal fave., but it's not set anywhere near "our" period....

It may be the overwhelming failure of our education system(s) that our kids no longer learn the fundamentals of critical thinking in school, and they get terribly short shrift as to proper research techniques, regardless of discipline, *sigh*

Love,
J


________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: I stand corrected re: Man of All Seasons :)


 
 
To be clear, I actually enjoyed the film.  The writing was wonderful.
 
I feel the same way about Lion in Winter-- right at the top of my list of all time favorites because it is so brilliantly done--no matter any looseness that may have been taken with 'history'.

--- On Sun, 5/15/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To: "" <>
Date: Sunday, May 15, 2011, 1:56 PM

 

Dear Margie,

I fear I must take exception at "perfectly ridiculous." Both play and movie were brilliantly written, directed, and performed. This is tantamount to dismissing Shakespeare because we disagree with his historical biases.

Regards,
Judy Gerard Thomson

________________________________
From: MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

 
Hi Joan:
 
Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some deeper reading.  To be perfectly honest, not having a good education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII.  I have a lot of 'catching up' to do....
 
Margie

--- On Sat, 5/14/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:

From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 1:25 PM

 

Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree with
the verdict, the executions were legal.

Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More abandoned
the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to see
it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
American Branch website here
<http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .

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 , MD Deck
<mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like to
see your list. Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
off-list?
> Â
> The 'newbie',
> Â
> Margie
>
>
> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Brian wainwright.brian@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
differently to the way they treat other kings.
>
> I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
>
> I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh. (Except
when I have read my own work of course!)
>
> The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke (as
he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
>
> I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place. Anyway,
it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as some
kind of exceptional monster.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
wrote:
> >
> > OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
Royal Council.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree on all counts, Judy. To get back to the plays, not only do I
love "A Man for All Seasons," "Lion in Winter," and yes, Shakespeare's
"Richard III" for drama and writing. In fact, I doubt we'd be hear
discussing Richard if Shakespeare hadn't written the play. I suspect
that Richard, having reigned for just over two years, would have been an
obscure footnote in history.

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:
>
> Yes, Lion in Winter....
>
> "What family doesn't have its ups and downs?"
> or
> "There'll be pork in the trees, come morning!"
>
> The Lark, Becket, and Luther were of that general playwriting era.
Earlier, there was Maxwell Anderson's poignant Richard and Anne
(Anderson, I believe, also wrote Anne of the Thousand Days; R&A wasn't
published 'til many years later). Though sometimes very convoluted, I
also recommend the plays of Tom Stoppard; Arcadia is my personal fave.,
but it's not set anywhere near "our" period....
>
> It may be the overwhelming failure of our education system(s) that our
kids no longer learn the fundamentals of critical thinking in school,
and they get terribly short shrift as to proper research techniques,
regardless of discipline, *sigh*
>
> Love,
> J
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: MD Deck mdbuyingstuff@...
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re: I stand corrected re: Man of
All Seasons :)
>
>
> Â
> Â
> To be clear, I actually enjoyed the film. The writing was
wonderful.
> Â
> I feel the same way about Lion in Winter-- right at the top of my list
of all time favorites because it is so brilliantly done--no matterÂ
any looseness that may have been taken with 'history'.
>
> --- On Sun, 5/15/11, Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@... wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To: ""

> Date: Sunday, May 15, 2011, 1:56 PM
>
> Â
>
> Dear Margie,
>
> I fear I must take exception at "perfectly ridiculous." Both play and
movie were brilliantly written, directed, and performed. This is
tantamount to dismissing Shakespeare because we disagree with his
historical biases.
>
> Regards,
> Judy Gerard Thomson
>
> ________________________________
> From: MD Deck mdbuyingstuff@...
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
> Â
> Hi Joan:
> Â
> Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some
deeper reading. To be perfectly honest, not having a good
education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading
The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All
Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful
book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII. I have a lot of 'catching
up' to do....
> Â
> Margie
>
> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, joanszechtman u2nohoo@... wrote:
>
> From: joanszechtman u2nohoo@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 1:25 PM
>
> Â
>
> Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
> and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree
with
> the verdict, the executions were legal.
>
> Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
> stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More
abandoned
> the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
> Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
> typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
> seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
> make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to
see
> it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
> American Branch website here
> <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .
>
> 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 , MD Deck
> mdbuyingstuff@ wrote:
> >
> > I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like
to
> see your list. Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
> off-list?
> > Â
> > The 'newbie',
> > Â
> > Margie
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Brian wainwright.brian@
> > Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
> differently to the way they treat other kings.
> >
> > I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
> Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
> >
> > I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
> summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh.
(Except
> when I have read my own work of course!)
> >
> > The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
> therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke
(as
> he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
> of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
> historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
> crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
> >
> > I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
> the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place.
Anyway,
> it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
> Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
> situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as
some
> kind of exceptional monster.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
email@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
> actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
> individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
> Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
> Royal Council.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you, Joan.

And I, too, have long entertained a similar feeling about More's nuanced intentions, as I once suggested in a response to "More's Code." [Note to others:  I had briefly compared/contrasted More's R III "history" with his even quirkier Utopia. This (now seldom-read) fabula fantasia had slipped past the Tudor "censors" like a greased cobra.] 

Who's up for a bit of reading-in-tandem? (Consider the Holbein double portrait with the anamorphic "smear" at the bottom; a tubular mirror clears up that mystery!) Similarly, one might gain some access to More's modus operandi by examining Utopia alongside Richard III.

Just a crazy thought, of course.

JT  


________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: I stand corrected re: Man of All Seasons :)


 
I agree on all counts, Judy. To get back to the plays, not only do I
love "A Man for All Seasons," "Lion in Winter," and yes, Shakespeare's
"Richard III" for drama and writing. In fact, I doubt we'd be hear
discussing Richard if Shakespeare hadn't written the play. I suspect
that Richard, having reigned for just over two years, would have been an
obscure footnote in history.

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:
>
> Yes, Lion in Winter....
>
> "What family doesn't have its ups and downs?"
> or
> "There'll be pork in the trees, come morning!"
>
> The Lark, Becket, and Luther were of that general playwriting era.
Earlier, there was Maxwell Anderson's poignant Richard and Anne
(Anderson, I believe, also wrote Anne of the Thousand Days; R&A wasn't
published 'til many years later). Though sometimes very convoluted, I
also recommend the plays of Tom Stoppard; Arcadia is my personal fave.,
but it's not set anywhere near "our" period....
>
> It may be the overwhelming failure of our education system(s) that our
kids no longer learn the fundamentals of critical thinking in school,
and they get terribly short shrift as to proper research techniques,
regardless of discipline, *sigh*
>
> Love,
> J
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: MD Deck mdbuyingstuff@...
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re: I stand corrected re: Man of
All Seasons :)
>
>
> Â
> Â
> To be clear, I actually enjoyed the film. The writing was
wonderful.
> Â
> I feel the same way about Lion in Winter-- right at the top of my list
of all time favorites because it is so brilliantly done--no matterÂ
any looseness that may have been taken with 'history'.
>
> --- On Sun, 5/15/11, Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@... wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To: ""

> Date: Sunday, May 15, 2011, 1:56 PM
>
> Â
>
> Dear Margie,
>
> I fear I must take exception at "perfectly ridiculous." Both play and
movie were brilliantly written, directed, and performed. This is
tantamount to dismissing Shakespeare because we disagree with his
historical biases.
>
> Regards,
> Judy Gerard Thomson
>
> ________________________________
> From: MD Deck mdbuyingstuff@...
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
> Â
> Hi Joan:
> Â
> Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some
deeper reading. To be perfectly honest, not having a good
education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading
The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All
Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful
book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII. I have a lot of 'catching
up' to do....
> Â
> Margie
>
> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, joanszechtman u2nohoo@... wrote:
>
> From: joanszechtman u2nohoo@...
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 1:25 PM
>
> Â
>
> Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
> and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree
with
> the verdict, the executions were legal.
>
> Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
> stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More
abandoned
> the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
> Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
> typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
> seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
> make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to
see
> it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
> American Branch website here
> <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .
>
> 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 , MD Deck
> mdbuyingstuff@ wrote:
> >
> > I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like
to
> see your list.Ã Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
> off-list?
> > Ã
> > The 'newbie',
> > Ã
> > Margie
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Brian wainwright.brian@
> > Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
> >
> >
> > Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
> differently to the way they treat other kings.
> >
> > I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
> Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
> >
> > I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
> summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh.
(Except
> when I have read my own work of course!)
> >
> > The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
> therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke
(as
> he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
> of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
> historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
> crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
> >
> > I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
> the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place.
Anyway,
> it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
> Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
> situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as
some
> kind of exceptional monster.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
email@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
> actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
> individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
> Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
> Royal Council.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

  You mean The Ambassadors?  with the freaky skull?  You only have to view it from an angle.  When it's blown up with a projector (we had one in my Art History class) you can walk from side to side of the picture and see the men's eyes follow you, too.
  After school's out maybe I can try your experiment with Utopia and RIII.
Sheffe




>________________________________
>From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 9:52 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: I stand corrected re: Man of All Seasons :)
>
>
> 
>Thank you, Joan.
>
>And I, too, have long entertained a similar feeling about More's nuanced intentions, as I once suggested in a response to "More's Code." [Note to others:  I had briefly compared/contrasted More's R III "history" with his even quirkier Utopia. This (now seldom-read) fabula fantasia had slipped past the Tudor "censors" like a greased cobra.] 
>
>Who's up for a bit of reading-in-tandem? (Consider the Holbein double portrait with the anamorphic "smear" at the bottom; a tubular mirror clears up that mystery!) Similarly, one might gain some access to More's modus operandi by examining Utopia alongside Richard III.
>
>Just a crazy thought, of course.
>
>JT  
>
>________________________________
>From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 6:54 PM
>Subject: Re: I stand corrected re: Man of All Seasons :)
>
> 
>I agree on all counts, Judy. To get back to the plays, not only do I
>love "A Man for All Seasons," "Lion in Winter," and yes, Shakespeare's
>"Richard III" for drama and writing. In fact, I doubt we'd be hear
>discussing Richard if Shakespeare hadn't written the play. I suspect
>that Richard, having reigned for just over two years, would have been an
>obscure footnote in history.
>
>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:
>>
>> Yes, Lion in Winter....
>>
>> "What family doesn't have its ups and downs?"
>> or
>> "There'll be pork in the trees, come morning!"
>>
>> The Lark, Becket, and Luther were of that general playwriting era.
>Earlier, there was Maxwell Anderson's poignant Richard and Anne
>(Anderson, I believe, also wrote Anne of the Thousand Days; R&A wasn't
>published 'til many years later). Though sometimes very convoluted, I
>also recommend the plays of Tom Stoppard; Arcadia is my personal fave.,
>but it's not set anywhere near "our" period....
>>
>> It may be the overwhelming failure of our education system(s) that our
>kids no longer learn the fundamentals of critical thinking in school,
>and they get terribly short shrift as to proper research techniques,
>regardless of discipline, *sigh*
>>
>> Love,
>> J
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: MD Deck mdbuyingstuff@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 4:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: I stand corrected re: Man of
>All Seasons :)
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Â
>> To be clear, I actually enjoyed the film. The writing was
>wonderful.
>> Â
>> I feel the same way about Lion in Winter-- right at the top of my list
>of all time favorites because it is so brilliantly done--no matterÂ
>any looseness that may have been taken with 'history'.
>>
>> --- On Sun, 5/15/11, Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@... wrote:
>>
>> From: Judy Thomson judygerard.thomson@...
>> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>> To: ""
>
>> Date: Sunday, May 15, 2011, 1:56 PM
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Dear Margie,
>>
>> I fear I must take exception at "perfectly ridiculous." Both play and
>movie were brilliantly written, directed, and performed. This is
>tantamount to dismissing Shakespeare because we disagree with his
>historical biases.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Judy Gerard Thomson
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: MD Deck mdbuyingstuff@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 12:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>>
>> Â
>> Hi Joan:
>> Â
>> Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some
>deeper reading. To be perfectly honest, not having a good
>education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading
>The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All
>Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful
>book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII. I have a lot of 'catching
>up' to do....
>> Â
>> Margie
>>
>> --- On Sat, 5/14/11, joanszechtman u2nohoo@... wrote:
>>
>> From: joanszechtman u2nohoo@...
>> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>> To:
>> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 1:25 PM
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Regarding Vaughan, Haute, Rivers, and Grey: I believe they were tried
>> and found guilty of treason. So, despite whether or not some agree
>with
>> the verdict, the executions were legal.
>>
>> Margie, I have, from time to time, thought that More's "History" could
>> stand scholarly scrutiny that would perhaps point to why More
>abandoned
>> the work. I find it quite curious that the very opening paragraph gets
>> Edward IV's age at death wrong by about 13 years. This is more than a
>> typo! Was it perhaps a signal that the work was not to be taken
>> seriously? Since so many "historians" (read the quotes as air quotes)
>> make reference to this work as more or less gospel, I would love to
>see
>> it discredited once and for all. You can find a reprint online at the
>> American Branch website here
>> <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html> .
>>
>> 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 , MD Deck
>> mdbuyingstuff@ wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't wish to bore long time members, but I would very much like
>to
>> see your list.Ã Could you possibly re-post here, or send to me
>> off-list?
>> > Ã
>> > The 'newbie',
>> > Ã
>> > Margie
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Sat, 5/14/11, Brian wainwright.brian@ wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Brian wainwright.brian@
>> > Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>> > To:
>> > Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 6:06 AM
>> >
>> >
>> > Ã
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I find it 'interesting' that historians treat Richard quite
>> differently to the way they treat other kings.
>> >
>> > I have often read criticism of Richard summarily executing Hastings,
>> Rivers, Grey and Vaughan.
>> >
>> > I have never, ever, read any criticism *at all* of Henry IV for
>> summarily executing Wiltshire, Bushey, Green and Sir Piers Legh.
>(Except
>> when I have read my own work of course!)
>> >
>> > The strange thing is, Richard was Lord Protector at the time and
>> therefore the legal chief executive of the state. Henry Bolingbroke
>(as
>> he was at the time of his executions)had no legal status as an officer
>> of the Crown whatsoever. Strictly speaking, he was a rebel. So why do
>> historians and commentators give him a pass on this issue while
>> crucifying Richard for doing roughly the same thing?
>> >
>> > I once drew up quite a list of summary executions carried out during
>> the 14th and 15th centuries. I think it was in this very place.
>Anyway,
>> it would be boring to repeat it. The point I want to make is that
>> Richard's actions were by no means unprecedented in 'revolutionary'
>> situations in this era. It is therefore unjust to single him out as
>some
>> kind of exceptional monster.
>> >
>> > Brian W
>> >
>> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
>email@
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > OK, back to "murder by any standards". First, you cannot judge the
>> actions of a mediaeval ruler by the same standards as those for other
>> individuals, and by "ruler" one has to embrace the role of Lord
>> Protector, to which I assume we all agree Richard was appointed by the
>> Royal Council.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Actually I'm in the middle of reading Marius, whose 'Thomas More' of 1984 seems to be recommended as the biography to read, and it is helpful in many ways, e.g. I now don't think I need to read 'Utopia' (thank goodness) to understand what More was getting at, which was entirely fanciful.

However (and it's a big one for Ricardians) ... although Marius is clear-eyed about nearly all More's shortcomings, and admits openly that he ducked and dived whenever it suited him, which included writing shameful lies and distortions about the Richard Hunne case, nevertheless Marius believes that 'The History of Richard III' is based on historical truth! I can't explain Marius's stance except that the only sources for Richard III mentioned in his bibliography are Paul Murray Kendall, Elizabeth Jenkins, and a 1933 paper by A F Pollard (Tony Pollard's dad). If Marius was educated in the typical Tudor historian standpoint that Richard III was a murdering tyrant, it would take more than Jenkins and what I suspect was a superficial reading of Kendall to make him rethink. He describes 'The History' as 'a consistent, detailed and plausible version of events' ... but the clearest indication of his attitude is the statement 'The most important question a biographer can ask of 'The History' is not about the work's accuracy but rather about what it can tell us of More's mind'. However, I still think it was lazy, if nothing else, not to admit that More could have been just as happy to write untruths and distortions to suit his personal agenda in this case, as he was in the Hunne case.

I've read nearly 400 pages of Marius, and have another 150 or so left. But from what I've learned so far (and I'd be interested in feedback on these conclusions), I believe More to have suffered from deep psychological problems relating to his religion, his sexuality and his self-image. Marius makes it pretty clear that T.M. was mortified by his own failure to enter the clergy and embrace chastity, and from this we can deduce the reasons why his zeal was so excessive, even grotesque, in these two areas. As to his self-image, Marius doesn't directly say so (or hasn't so far), but the impression I have of More is one absolutely obsessed with his own image, intellect, ambition and self-aggrandizement. This, to me, explains how he was able to rise so high in the general esteem of those he cultivated in his professional life, while utterly losing his rag when it came to dealing with criticism of himself or his most cherished views and beliefs.

About the 'History of Richard III', the one thing I've gleaned from Marius that I think may be a significant key for me is More's reaction to the tyranny of Henry VII in punishing More's father for something done by Thomas. I'd read of it previously but didn't appreciate, as I do now, the full extent of how More would have been psychologically scarred by this. I think it was Alison Hanham who brought this into her analysis in 'Early Historians', and I will have to read it again when I've finished Marius. I know Hanham isn't a Ricardian, and there are many critics of her book, but I still think her analysis of More's 'History' is masterly and what I've read in Marius hasn't changed my mind.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

--- In , MD Deck <mdbuyingstuff@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joan:
> Â
> Thanks for the link, I gave a quick scan and will return for some deeper reading. To be perfectly honest, not having a good education, my only knowledge of the sainted Mr. More, prior to reading The Daughter of Time, was the perfectly ridiculous movie, A Man For All Seasons, and his story within the story of Margaret George's wonderful book, The Autobiography of Henry VIII. I have a lot of 'catching up' to do....
> Â
> Margie

I recommend Richard Marius's biography of More called, not surprisingly, Thomas More, A Biography. You'll learn a lot about the personality and character of "the sainted More."

Kay

On 16 May 2011, at 11:17, Annette Carson wrote:

> Marius believes that 'The History of Richard III' is based on historical truth! I can't explain Marius's stance except that the only sources for Richard III mentioned in his bibliography are Paul Murray Kendall, Elizabeth Jenkins, and a 1933 paper by A F Pollard (Tony Pollard's dad). If Marius was educated in the typical Tudor historian standpoint that Richard III was a murdering tyrant, it would take more than Jenkins and what I suspect was a superficial reading of Kendall to make him rethink.


I don't understand how anybody could read Kendall and not see that More's tale is nothing to do with the facts of history.
Paul

Interesting - AF Pollard wrote the 1897 DNB article on Thomas Stafford.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!




On 16 May 2011, at 11:17, Annette Carson wrote:

> Marius believes that 'The History of Richard III' is based on historical truth! I can't explain Marius's stance except that the only sources for Richard III mentioned in his bibliography are Paul Murray Kendall, Elizabeth Jenkins, and a 1933 paper by A F Pollard (Tony Pollard's dad). If Marius was educated in the typical Tudor historian standpoint that Richard III was a murdering tyrant, it would take more than Jenkins and what I suspect was a superficial reading of Kendall to make him rethink.

I don't understand how anybody could read Kendall and not see that More's tale is nothing to do with the facts of history.
Paul

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Actually I'm in the middle of reading Marius, whose 'Thomas More' of 1984 seems to be recommended as the biography to read,
>
> However (and it's a big one for Ricardians) ... although Marius is clear-eyed about nearly all More's shortcomings, and admits openly that he ducked and dived whenever it suited him, which included writing shameful lies and distortions about the Richard Hunne case,

(Kay says) I'd be less kind in describing More's actions in the Hunne case -- I'd say More perjured himself six ways from Sunday, evidently believing the records would be sealed forever.

(Annette says)> I've read nearly 400 pages of Marius, and have another 150 or so left.

(Kay says) When you finish the book, I think you'll see that, after revealing many but probably not all of More's faults, Marius drags himself back to the admiration of More he started with, by an almost palpable act of will, and ends up with an embarrassing paean of the man, even citing his masculine beauty. Ick. I don't know if this is a case of pandering...er...slanting so as not to alienate the anticipated readership of Catholics and fans of A Man For All Seasons, or if he developed a crush on his subject akin to the one Muriel St Clare Byrne clearly had on her Arthur Plantagenet when she assembled and edited the Lisle Letters -- I'm sure he came to her at night in her narrow bed -- but I think Marius idealized More there at the end, despite what he revealed in the previous several hundred pages.

(Annette says)But from what I've learned so far (and I'd be interested in feedback on these conclusions), I believe More to have suffered from deep psychological problems relating to his religion, his sexuality and his self-image.

(Kay says) I agree. I think it was revealed that More was desperate to be famous, and that, not his principles or his religious faith, was the foundation of his life. And his death.


(Annette says) Marius makes it pretty clear that T.M. was mortified by his own failure to enter the clergy and embrace chastity, and from this we can deduce the reasons why his zeal was so excessive, even grotesque, in these two areas.

(Kay says) He was about to become an acolyte at one point, but went away for a weekend and returned married. After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years -- but he also had the means to provide for their care while he followed what he said was his heart's desire and entered the Church.

More had a lifelong pattern of hypocrisy. He wore a hair shirt, but he made sure the hem of it showed. He wore the big Tudor S-link necklace of high office, but it was not a gift from the king, as customary -- More bought it for himself. He never did a potentially admirable thing that he didn't self-publicize. He told little stories and anecdotes, starring himself at the expense of others. For instance, he often told about how he had actually preferred one of his first wife's younger sisters, but he married the eldest because he didn't want to wound her feelings. What a guy -- he married her out of pity and proclaimed his magnaminousness for the rest of her life.

(Annette says) As to his self-image, Marius doesn't directly say so (or hasn't so far), but the impression I have of More is one absolutely obsessed with his own image, intellect, ambition and self-aggrandizement. This, to me, explains how he was able to rise so high in the general esteem of those he cultivated in his professional life, while utterly losing his rag when it came to dealing with criticism of himself or his most cherished views and beliefs.
>
> About the 'History of Richard III', the one thing I've gleaned from Marius that I think may be a significant key for me is More's reaction to the tyranny of Henry VII in punishing More's father for something done by Thomas.

(Kay says) I've always found it interesting that John More, Thomas's father, left a bequest in his will to pay for prayers for the soul of Edward IV, but nothing for Henry VII or Henry VIII, under whose reigns he and his famous son had prospered.

Kay

Paul, I really don't think Marius bothered to read Kendall's "Richard III" except for a few odd passages that were drawn to his attention (I suspect he delegated this to a researcher, as he skirts unforgivably around things like Titulus Regius and Lady Eleanor Talbot). Like many historians, he obviously has no time for Kendall. But like I said, his view is that challenges to the veracity of the 'History' are tedious and irrelevant anyway: "The greatest public interest in More's 'History' has been the one least interesting to a biographer. It is this: How accurate is the work?" So he sets himself aloof from such matters at the outset.

Kendall is the only defender of Richard quoted by Marius, and that in only three or four places. He admits on only one occasion that Kendall has raised a point which might be valid (about Brackenbury being unlikely to allow Tyrell access to the boys), and counters that by saying that More was probably 'deceived' by being purposely given a misleading account of events by the Howard family, since John Howard (Richard's Duke of Norfolk) 'had every reason to want the little princes dead' since he was next in line for the Mowbray inheritance etc, etc, the old story that we all know so well. This is a BIG mistake on Marius's part, as he displays his total ignorance of the facts by constructing a whole crazy scenario making Howard the murderer on Richard's orders.

Evidently both Marius and his researcher had only a hazy idea of English geography and no idea at all of Richard's movements in the summer of 1483, or who was Constable of the Tower. So the story runs that More has mis-identified Brackenbury as Constable when it was actually Howard at the time, from which we are to suppose that it was to Howard, not Brackenbury, that Richard sent Tyrell from Warwick to murder the boys. As you can see, everything is hopelessly out of sequence and out of chronological order. It may seem astonishing that Marius should give house-room to this concocted tale, except that, as with so many supercilious Tudor historians, e.g. Starkey, he clearly has no interest in addressing matters of history that took place before his own period of interest. Unfortunately, I doubt whether many of his readers would have spotted such mistakes, no matter how glaring. Never mind, dear reader, even if More was so egregiously misinformed, Marius still argues that the 'History' is all the more believable because of the Howard connection: '... especially if one of his informants was the elder Thomas Howard or even Howard's son'. The mind boggles. How do they get away with it?
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!




On 16 May 2011, at 11:17, Annette Carson wrote:

> Marius believes that 'The History of Richard III' is based on historical truth! I can't explain Marius's stance except that the only sources for Richard III mentioned in his bibliography are Paul Murray Kendall, Elizabeth Jenkins, and a 1933 paper by A F Pollard (Tony Pollard's dad). If Marius was educated in the typical Tudor historian standpoint that Richard III was a murdering tyrant, it would take more than Jenkins and what I suspect was a superficial reading of Kendall to make him rethink.

I don't understand how anybody could read Kendall and not see that More's tale is nothing to do with the facts of history.
Paul

How do they get away with it? It is the "Sainted More" isn't it?
Paul


On 16 May 2011, at 16:33, Annette Carson wrote:

> Paul, I really don't think Marius bothered to read Kendall's "Richard III" except for a few odd passages that were drawn to his attention (I suspect he delegated this to a researcher, as he skirts unforgivably around things like Titulus Regius and Lady Eleanor Talbot). Like many historians, he obviously has no time for Kendall. But like I said, his view is that challenges to the veracity of the 'History' are tedious and irrelevant anyway: "The greatest public interest in More's 'History' has been the one least interesting to a biographer. It is this: How accurate is the work?" So he sets himself aloof from such matters at the outset.
>
> Kendall is the only defender of Richard quoted by Marius, and that in only three or four places. He admits on only one occasion that Kendall has raised a point which might be valid (about Brackenbury being unlikely to allow Tyrell access to the boys), and counters that by saying that More was probably 'deceived' by being purposely given a misleading account of events by the Howard family, since John Howard (Richard's Duke of Norfolk) 'had every reason to want the little princes dead' since he was next in line for the Mowbray inheritance etc, etc, the old story that we all know so well. This is a BIG mistake on Marius's part, as he displays his total ignorance of the facts by constructing a whole crazy scenario making Howard the murderer on Richard's orders.
>
> Evidently both Marius and his researcher had only a hazy idea of English geography and no idea at all of Richard's movements in the summer of 1483, or who was Constable of the Tower. So the story runs that More has mis-identified Brackenbury as Constable when it was actually Howard at the time, from which we are to suppose that it was to Howard, not Brackenbury, that Richard sent Tyrell from Warwick to murder the boys. As you can see, everything is hopelessly out of sequence and out of chronological order. It may seem astonishing that Marius should give house-room to this concocted tale, except that, as with so many supercilious Tudor historians, e.g. Starkey, he clearly has no interest in addressing matters of history that took place before his own period of interest. Unfortunately, I doubt whether many of his readers would have spotted such mistakes, no matter how glaring. Never mind, dear reader, even if More was so egregiously misinformed, Marius still argues that the 'History' is all the more believable because of the Howard connection: '... especially if one of his informants was the elder Thomas Howard or even Howard's son'. The mind boggles. How do they get away with it?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>
>
> On 16 May 2011, at 11:17, Annette Carson wrote:
>
>> Marius believes that 'The History of Richard III' is based on historical truth! I can't explain Marius's stance except that the only sources for Richard III mentioned in his bibliography are Paul Murray Kendall, Elizabeth Jenkins, and a 1933 paper by A F Pollard (Tony Pollard's dad). If Marius was educated in the typical Tudor historian standpoint that Richard III was a murdering tyrant, it would take more than Jenkins and what I suspect was a superficial reading of Kendall to make him rethink.
>
> I don't understand how anybody could read Kendall and not see that More's tale is nothing to do with the facts of history.
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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

> After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years


Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.

Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.

Kay

Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!

Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."

BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!

Judy


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!


 


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

> After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years

Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.

Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.

Kay

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>"
>
> BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
> Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!
>
> Judy


Can I have your books if you're "taken up" on Saturday?

Kay

To Kay: While I expect to be here (too wicked), sure! They're yours!

You can have a harp, too. Small, lap-style; I'll soon have three of'em.

; 0  Judy


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!


 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>"
>
> BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
> Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!
>
> Judy

Can I have your books if you're "taken up" on Saturday?

Kay

yes, some people are very gullible. this is a prime example of how the black mythology of richard has lived on for so many years.
i have several relatives who are "talibangelists". the origin of the rapture comes out of scotland prior to 1830, i believe the 15 year old girl's name was margaret macdonald. she had a dream about the rapture. she told her priest, who told her bishop..and so and so.
 
the rapture concept was picked up in england by a converted lawyer, darby or derby. anyhow he was a drunk, womaniser and con-artist who found religion. he spread the word. it was then picked up and brought to america by yet another lawyer, bigamist, womaniser, conartist drunk who had found religion. his name was i.c. scofield. scofield even went so far with his con as to write his own annotated version of the bible. all references to rapture are noted and cross referenced. the fun part is the word rapture is not even mentioned in the bible..but hey, if you twist the facts enough the gullible will buy it.
 
this rapture movement has spread across the usa, especially in the 1930's. nothing like poor economic times to turn many people to religion. from there it has been spread across north america and has invaded politics. canada's prime minister is one of these talibangelists...so here's hoping mr. harper finds his rapture this saturday. i certainly won't mind being left behind. oh..and g.w. bush was involved with this mentally deficient mob too.
 
the party faithful get the church to turn out their flock to vote enmasse for the good christian leader..i.e. harper and bush.
 
one has to wonder how many times these fear mongers will continue to be believed.
there was a huge one in the eastern usa circa 1844. the faithful all gathered in some hills, i believe it was in new york state..it was dooms day..end of days. the return of jesus. (it didnt' happen..loads of people were sorely embarrassed.)
 
i hesitate to use christ to discuss the rapture and their jesus..as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.
yup..the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian.
 
oh..and these talibangelists..want the middle east to blow to hell. because then jesus will return. they are known as zionist christians..including bushco and harper..aka bush lite.
they support the zionist isrealis..note..not the jews..because many, many jews have no use for the zionists..be they isreali or christian. btw..the muslims also believe in this insanity too. they believe jesus was a great leader..a prophet. mohammed was the last prophet.
both jesus and mohammed will come again. sigh.
 
so..here's to may 21st..and hoping the millions and millions of the "faithful" will finally wake up to this con that has been going for over a century and a half.
 
now..if we only had a date that the believers of bad ole king richard could wake up on.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:55 PM


 



Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!

Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."

BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!

Judy

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

 

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

> After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years

Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.

Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.

Kay

i have been offered belongings from the "faithful" too. it's really rather insulting. in their own twisted convoluted way they are saying...you aren't good enough to be saved. awck..i believe in evolution! i don't speak in tongues. and i don't believe in the rapture..i'm sooo bad.
but, i could be rich now too..if i were truely nasty..i would have had them legally sign over the belongings..btw..there is even a pet rescue set up for the pets that will be left behind.
 
it's a whole industry..and of course..the october date is just a fail safe so the "ones" who didn't believe strongly enough will allow the conartists time to "get outta town" before they get tarred and feathered.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 1:28 PM


 



To Kay: While I expect to be here (too wicked), sure! They're yours!

You can have a harp, too. Small, lap-style; I'll soon have three of'em.

; 0  Judy

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

 

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>"
>
> BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
> Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!
>
> Judy

Can I have your books if you're "taken up" on Saturday?

Kay

"as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom."

I believe that the word Christ is derived from the Greek verb ÇÁ¯É which means "to anoint" (transliteration chriM). Thus Jesus Christ is Jesus the Anointed [One]. See KJV Luke 4:18; Acts 4: 27, Acts 10:38.

Flo

On May 17, 2011, at 1:39 PM, fayre rose wrote:

> as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.

There are also "gold" and, by extension, "golden light."   [St. John Chrysostom ("Golden mouth"), a brilliant preacher in Constantinople.] 

(Does Greek get through the filter? A lot of special characters don't....)

And speaking of "special characters," is Bill Barber out there, somewhere? A shout Out to ya!

Judy,
who used to have a tee-shirt that translated: "If you can read this, you're over-educated, Sister."


________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!


 
"as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom."

I believe that the word Christ is derived from the Greek verb ÇÁ¯É which means "to anoint" (transliteration chriM). Thus Jesus Christ is Jesus the Anointed [One]. See KJV Luke 4:18; Acts 4: 27, Acts 10:38.

Flo

On May 17, 2011, at 1:39 PM, fayre rose wrote:

> as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.

you are correct. gnosis is the greek word for wisdom/knowledge. i still think "christ" belongs to the people who do follow his teachings and are christ like. vs the corruption of his teachings via organised religion..and call themselves christian and teach intolerance.
christ was anti-establishment, egalitarian and socialist. all you need to do is read the new testament to know that. that is why christianity appealled to the masses.
they already had greed and oppression via the lords temporal and spiritual.
roslyn

--- On Tue, 5/17/11, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:


From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 2:11 PM


 



"as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom."

I believe that the word Christ is derived from the Greek verb ÇÁ¯É which means "to anoint" (transliteration chriM). Thus Jesus Christ is Jesus the Anointed [One]. See KJV Luke 4:18; Acts 4: 27, Acts 10:38.

Flo

On May 17, 2011, at 1:39 PM, fayre rose wrote:

> as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.

Well Fayre Rose I thought this was for discussions of Richard III and the 15th century not Bush bashing!


--- On Tue, 5/17/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:


From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:39 PM


 



yes, some people are very gullible. this is a prime example of how the black mythology of richard has lived on for so many years.
i have several relatives who are "talibangelists". the origin of the rapture comes out of scotland prior to 1830, i believe the 15 year old girl's name was margaret macdonald. she had a dream about the rapture. she told her priest, who told her bishop..and so and so.
 
the rapture concept was picked up in england by a converted lawyer, darby or derby. anyhow he was a drunk, womaniser and con-artist who found religion. he spread the word. it was then picked up and brought to america by yet another lawyer, bigamist, womaniser, conartist drunk who had found religion. his name was i.c. scofield. scofield even went so far with his con as to write his own annotated version of the bible. all references to rapture are noted and cross referenced. the fun part is the word rapture is not even mentioned in the bible..but hey, if you twist the facts enough the gullible will buy it.
 
this rapture movement has spread across the usa, especially in the 1930's. nothing like poor economic times to turn many people to religion. from there it has been spread across north america and has invaded politics. canada's prime minister is one of these talibangelists...so here's hoping mr. harper finds his rapture this saturday. i certainly won't mind being left behind. oh..and g.w. bush was involved with this mentally deficient mob too.
 
the party faithful get the church to turn out their flock to vote enmasse for the good christian leader..i.e. harper and bush.
 
one has to wonder how many times these fear mongers will continue to be believed.
there was a huge one in the eastern usa circa 1844. the faithful all gathered in some hills, i believe it was in new york state..it was dooms day..end of days. the return of jesus. (it didnt' happen..loads of people were sorely embarrassed.)
 
i hesitate to use christ to discuss the rapture and their jesus..as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.
yup..the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian.
 
oh..and these talibangelists..want the middle east to blow to hell. because then jesus will return. they are known as zionist christians..including bushco and harper..aka bush lite.
they support the zionist isrealis..note..not the jews..because many, many jews have no use for the zionists..be they isreali or christian. btw..the muslims also believe in this insanity too. they believe jesus was a great leader..a prophet. mohammed was the last prophet.
both jesus and mohammed will come again. sigh.
 
so..here's to may 21st..and hoping the millions and millions of the "faithful" will finally wake up to this con that has been going for over a century and a half.
 
now..if we only had a date that the believers of bad ole king richard could wake up on.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:55 PM

 

Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!

Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."

BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!

Judy

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

 

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

> After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years

Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.

Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.

Kay

"Let it be! Let it be!"  Paul McCartney


________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!


 
Well Fayre Rose I thought this was for discussions of Richard III and the 15th century not Bush bashing!

--- On Tue, 5/17/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To:
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:39 PM

 

yes, some people are very gullible. this is a prime example of how the black mythology of richard has lived on for so many years.
i have several relatives who are "talibangelists". the origin of the rapture comes out of scotland prior to 1830, i believe the 15 year old girl's name was margaret macdonald. she had a dream about the rapture. she told her priest, who told her bishop..and so and so.
 
the rapture concept was picked up in england by a converted lawyer, darby or derby. anyhow he was a drunk, womaniser and con-artist who found religion. he spread the word. it was then picked up and brought to america by yet another lawyer, bigamist, womaniser, conartist drunk who had found religion. his name was i.c. scofield. scofield even went so far with his con as to write his own annotated version of the bible. all references to rapture are noted and cross referenced. the fun part is the word rapture is not even mentioned in the bible..but hey, if you twist the facts enough the gullible will buy it.
 
this rapture movement has spread across the usa, especially in the 1930's. nothing like poor economic times to turn many people to religion. from there it has been spread across north america and has invaded politics. canada's prime minister is one of these talibangelists...so here's hoping mr. harper finds his rapture this saturday. i certainly won't mind being left behind. oh..and g.w. bush was involved with this mentally deficient mob too.
 
the party faithful get the church to turn out their flock to vote enmasse for the good christian leader..i.e. harper and bush.
 
one has to wonder how many times these fear mongers will continue to be believed.
there was a huge one in the eastern usa circa 1844. the faithful all gathered in some hills, i believe it was in new york state..it was dooms day..end of days. the return of jesus. (it didnt' happen..loads of people were sorely embarrassed.)
 
i hesitate to use christ to discuss the rapture and their jesus..as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.
yup..the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian.
 
oh..and these talibangelists..want the middle east to blow to hell. because then jesus will return. they are known as zionist christians..including bushco and harper..aka bush lite.
they support the zionist isrealis..note..not the jews..because many, many jews have no use for the zionists..be they isreali or christian. btw..the muslims also believe in this insanity too. they believe jesus was a great leader..a prophet. mohammed was the last prophet.
both jesus and mohammed will come again. sigh.
 
so..here's to may 21st..and hoping the millions and millions of the "faithful" will finally wake up to this con that has been going for over a century and a half.
 
now..if we only had a date that the believers of bad ole king richard could wake up on.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:55 PM

 

Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!

Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."

BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!

Judy

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

 

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

> After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years

Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.

Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.

Kay

:)

Sent from my iPhone

On May 17, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

> "Let it be! Let it be!" Paul McCartney
>
> ________________________________
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
> Well Fayre Rose I thought this was for discussions of Richard III and the 15th century not Bush bashing!
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:39 PM
>
>
>
> yes, some people are very gullible. this is a prime example of how the black mythology of richard has lived on for so many years.
> i have several relatives who are "talibangelists". the origin of the rapture comes out of scotland prior to 1830, i believe the 15 year old girl's name was margaret macdonald. she had a dream about the rapture. she told her priest, who told her bishop..and so and so.
>
> the rapture concept was picked up in england by a converted lawyer, darby or derby. anyhow he was a drunk, womaniser and con-artist who found religion. he spread the word. it was then picked up and brought to america by yet another lawyer, bigamist, womaniser, conartist drunk who had found religion. his name was i.c. scofield. scofield even went so far with his con as to write his own annotated version of the bible. all references to rapture are noted and cross referenced. the fun part is the word rapture is not even mentioned in the bible..but hey, if you twist the facts enough the gullible will buy it.
>
> this rapture movement has spread across the usa, especially in the 1930's. nothing like poor economic times to turn many people to religion. from there it has been spread across north america and has invaded politics. canada's prime minister is one of these talibangelists...so here's hoping mr. harper finds his rapture this saturday. i certainly won't mind being left behind. oh..and g.w. bush was involved with this mentally deficient mob too.
>
> the party faithful get the church to turn out their flock to vote enmasse for the good christian leader..i.e. harper and bush.
>
> one has to wonder how many times these fear mongers will continue to be believed.
> there was a huge one in the eastern usa circa 1844. the faithful all gathered in some hills, i believe it was in new york state..it was dooms day..end of days. the return of jesus. (it didnt' happen..loads of people were sorely embarrassed.)
>
> i hesitate to use christ to discuss the rapture and their jesus..as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.
> yup..the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian.
>
> oh..and these talibangelists..want the middle east to blow to hell. because then jesus will return. they are known as zionist christians..including bushco and harper..aka bush lite.
> they support the zionist isrealis..note..not the jews..because many, many jews have no use for the zionists..be they isreali or christian. btw..the muslims also believe in this insanity too. they believe jesus was a great leader..a prophet. mohammed was the last prophet.
> both jesus and mohammed will come again. sigh.
>
> so..here's to may 21st..and hoping the millions and millions of the "faithful" will finally wake up to this con that has been going for over a century and a half.
>
> now..if we only had a date that the believers of bad ole king richard could wake up on.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
> Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!
>
> Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."
>
> BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
> Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> > After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years
>
> Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.
>
> Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Greetings and best wishes! Sometimes, the best reply is...pax vobiscum.

J


________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Cc: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!


 
:)

Sent from my iPhone

On May 17, 2011, at 4:58 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

> "Let it be! Let it be!" Paul McCartney
>
> ________________________________
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
> Well Fayre Rose I thought this was for discussions of Richard III and the 15th century not Bush bashing!
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:39 PM
>
>
>
> yes, some people are very gullible. this is a prime example of how the black mythology of richard has lived on for so many years.
> i have several relatives who are "talibangelists". the origin of the rapture comes out of scotland prior to 1830, i believe the 15 year old girl's name was margaret macdonald. she had a dream about the rapture. she told her priest, who told her bishop..and so and so.
>
> the rapture concept was picked up in england by a converted lawyer, darby or derby. anyhow he was a drunk, womaniser and con-artist who found religion. he spread the word. it was then picked up and brought to america by yet another lawyer, bigamist, womaniser, conartist drunk who had found religion. his name was i.c. scofield. scofield even went so far with his con as to write his own annotated version of the bible. all references to rapture are noted and cross referenced. the fun part is the word rapture is not even mentioned in the bible..but hey, if you twist the facts enough the gullible will buy it.
>
> this rapture movement has spread across the usa, especially in the 1930's. nothing like poor economic times to turn many people to religion. from there it has been spread across north america and has invaded politics. canada's prime minister is one of these talibangelists...so here's hoping mr. harper finds his rapture this saturday. i certainly won't mind being left behind. oh..and g.w. bush was involved with this mentally deficient mob too.
>
> the party faithful get the church to turn out their flock to vote enmasse for the good christian leader..i.e. harper and bush.
>
> one has to wonder how many times these fear mongers will continue to be believed.
> there was a huge one in the eastern usa circa 1844. the faithful all gathered in some hills, i believe it was in new york state..it was dooms day..end of days. the return of jesus. (it didnt' happen..loads of people were sorely embarrassed.)
>
> i hesitate to use christ to discuss the rapture and their jesus..as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.
> yup..the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian.
>
> oh..and these talibangelists..want the middle east to blow to hell. because then jesus will return. they are known as zionist christians..including bushco and harper..aka bush lite.
> they support the zionist isrealis..note..not the jews..because many, many jews have no use for the zionists..be they isreali or christian. btw..the muslims also believe in this insanity too. they believe jesus was a great leader..a prophet. mohammed was the last prophet.
> both jesus and mohammed will come again. sigh.
>
> so..here's to may 21st..and hoping the millions and millions of the "faithful" will finally wake up to this con that has been going for over a century and a half.
>
> now..if we only had a date that the believers of bad ole king richard could wake up on.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
> Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!
>
> Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."
>
> BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
> Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> > After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years
>
> Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.
>
> Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well More was a Richard basher and that is allowed!!!:-).
I thought fayre rose's post was more about religion than anything else.
I totally agree with her when she says..."the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian"
Now as religion was such an important part of medieval life, and religious hypocrisy is nothing new, I do not see why the subject cannot be allowed, up to a point.
Paul


On 17 May 2011, at 21:12, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Well Fayre Rose I thought this was for discussions of Richard III and the 15th century not Bush bashing!
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:39 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> yes, some people are very gullible. this is a prime example of how the black mythology of richard has lived on for so many years.
> i have several relatives who are "talibangelists". the origin of the rapture comes out of scotland prior to 1830, i believe the 15 year old girl's name was margaret macdonald. she had a dream about the rapture. she told her priest, who told her bishop..and so and so.
>
> the rapture concept was picked up in england by a converted lawyer, darby or derby. anyhow he was a drunk, womaniser and con-artist who found religion. he spread the word. it was then picked up and brought to america by yet another lawyer, bigamist, womaniser, conartist drunk who had found religion. his name was i.c. scofield. scofield even went so far with his con as to write his own annotated version of the bible. all references to rapture are noted and cross referenced. the fun part is the word rapture is not even mentioned in the bible..but hey, if you twist the facts enough the gullible will buy it.
>
> this rapture movement has spread across the usa, especially in the 1930's. nothing like poor economic times to turn many people to religion. from there it has been spread across north america and has invaded politics. canada's prime minister is one of these talibangelists...so here's hoping mr. harper finds his rapture this saturday. i certainly won't mind being left behind. oh..and g.w. bush was involved with this mentally deficient mob too.
>
> the party faithful get the church to turn out their flock to vote enmasse for the good christian leader..i.e. harper and bush.
>
> one has to wonder how many times these fear mongers will continue to be believed.
> there was a huge one in the eastern usa circa 1844. the faithful all gathered in some hills, i believe it was in new york state..it was dooms day..end of days. the return of jesus. (it didnt' happen..loads of people were sorely embarrassed.)
>
> i hesitate to use christ to discuss the rapture and their jesus..as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.
> yup..the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian.
>
> oh..and these talibangelists..want the middle east to blow to hell. because then jesus will return. they are known as zionist christians..including bushco and harper..aka bush lite.
> they support the zionist isrealis..note..not the jews..because many, many jews have no use for the zionists..be they isreali or christian. btw..the muslims also believe in this insanity too. they believe jesus was a great leader..a prophet. mohammed was the last prophet.
> both jesus and mohammed will come again. sigh.
>
> so..here's to may 21st..and hoping the millions and millions of the "faithful" will finally wake up to this con that has been going for over a century and a half.
>
> now..if we only had a date that the believers of bad ole king richard could wake up on.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
> Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!
>
> Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."
>
> BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
> Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>> After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years
>
> Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.
>
> Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yes, Paul. Right on both counts.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!


 
Well More was a Richard basher and that is allowed!!!:-).
I thought fayre rose's post was more about religion than anything else.
I totally agree with her when she says..."the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian"
Now as religion was such an important part of medieval life, and religious hypocrisy is nothing new, I do not see why the subject cannot be allowed, up to a point.
Paul

On 17 May 2011, at 21:12, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Well Fayre Rose I thought this was for discussions of Richard III and the 15th century not Bush bashing!
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:39 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> yes, some people are very gullible. this is a prime example of how the black mythology of richard has lived on for so many years.
> i have several relatives who are "talibangelists". the origin of the rapture comes out of scotland prior to 1830, i believe the 15 year old girl's name was margaret macdonald. she had a dream about the rapture. she told her priest, who told her bishop..and so and so.
>
> the rapture concept was picked up in england by a converted lawyer, darby or derby. anyhow he was a drunk, womaniser and con-artist who found religion. he spread the word. it was then picked up and brought to america by yet another lawyer, bigamist, womaniser, conartist drunk who had found religion. his name was i.c. scofield. scofield even went so far with his con as to write his own annotated version of the bible. all references to rapture are noted and cross referenced. the fun part is the word rapture is not even mentioned in the bible..but hey, if you twist the facts enough the gullible will buy it.
>
> this rapture movement has spread across the usa, especially in the 1930's. nothing like poor economic times to turn many people to religion. from there it has been spread across north america and has invaded politics. canada's prime minister is one of these talibangelists...so here's hoping mr. harper finds his rapture this saturday. i certainly won't mind being left behind. oh..and g.w. bush was involved with this mentally deficient mob too.
>
> the party faithful get the church to turn out their flock to vote enmasse for the good christian leader..i.e. harper and bush.
>
> one has to wonder how many times these fear mongers will continue to be believed.
> there was a huge one in the eastern usa circa 1844. the faithful all gathered in some hills, i believe it was in new york state..it was dooms day..end of days. the return of jesus. (it didnt' happen..loads of people were sorely embarrassed.)
>
> i hesitate to use christ to discuss the rapture and their jesus..as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.
> yup..the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian.
>
> oh..and these talibangelists..want the middle east to blow to hell. because then jesus will return. they are known as zionist christians..including bushco and harper..aka bush lite.
> they support the zionist isrealis..note..not the jews..because many, many jews have no use for the zionists..be they isreali or christian. btw..the muslims also believe in this insanity too. they believe jesus was a great leader..a prophet. mohammed was the last prophet.
> both jesus and mohammed will come again. sigh.
>
> so..here's to may 21st..and hoping the millions and millions of the "faithful" will finally wake up to this con that has been going for over a century and a half.
>
> now..if we only had a date that the believers of bad ole king richard could wake up on.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
> Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!
>
> Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."
>
> BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
> Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>> After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years
>
> Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.
>
> Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I think I will take Judy's advice and "Let it Be"!!
Vickie

--- On Wed, 5/18/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
To: "" <>
Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2011, 7:38 AM


 



Yes, Paul. Right on both counts.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!

 
Well More was a Richard basher and that is allowed!!!:-).
I thought fayre rose's post was more about religion than anything else.
I totally agree with her when she says..."the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian"
Now as religion was such an important part of medieval life, and religious hypocrisy is nothing new, I do not see why the subject cannot be allowed, up to a point.
Paul

On 17 May 2011, at 21:12, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Well Fayre Rose I thought this was for discussions of Richard III and the 15th century not Bush bashing!
>
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:39 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> yes, some people are very gullible. this is a prime example of how the black mythology of richard has lived on for so many years.
> i have several relatives who are "talibangelists". the origin of the rapture comes out of scotland prior to 1830, i believe the 15 year old girl's name was margaret macdonald. she had a dream about the rapture. she told her priest, who told her bishop..and so and so.
>
> the rapture concept was picked up in england by a converted lawyer, darby or derby. anyhow he was a drunk, womaniser and con-artist who found religion. he spread the word. it was then picked up and brought to america by yet another lawyer, bigamist, womaniser, conartist drunk who had found religion. his name was i.c. scofield. scofield even went so far with his con as to write his own annotated version of the bible. all references to rapture are noted and cross referenced. the fun part is the word rapture is not even mentioned in the bible..but hey, if you twist the facts enough the gullible will buy it.
>
> this rapture movement has spread across the usa, especially in the 1930's. nothing like poor economic times to turn many people to religion. from there it has been spread across north america and has invaded politics. canada's prime minister is one of these talibangelists...so here's hoping mr. harper finds his rapture this saturday. i certainly won't mind being left behind. oh..and g.w. bush was involved with this mentally deficient mob too.
>
> the party faithful get the church to turn out their flock to vote enmasse for the good christian leader..i.e. harper and bush.
>
> one has to wonder how many times these fear mongers will continue to be believed.
> there was a huge one in the eastern usa circa 1844. the faithful all gathered in some hills, i believe it was in new york state..it was dooms day..end of days. the return of jesus. (it didnt' happen..loads of people were sorely embarrassed.)
>
> i hesitate to use christ to discuss the rapture and their jesus..as christ is a corruption of a greek word meaning wisdom.
> yup..the world would certainly be a better place if more people were christ-like vs being christian.
>
> oh..and these talibangelists..want the middle east to blow to hell. because then jesus will return. they are known as zionist christians..including bushco and harper..aka bush lite.
> they support the zionist isrealis..note..not the jews..because many, many jews have no use for the zionists..be they isreali or christian. btw..the muslims also believe in this insanity too. they believe jesus was a great leader..a prophet. mohammed was the last prophet.
> both jesus and mohammed will come again. sigh.
>
> so..here's to may 21st..and hoping the millions and millions of the "faithful" will finally wake up to this con that has been going for over a century and a half.
>
> now..if we only had a date that the believers of bad ole king richard could wake up on.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 5/17/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, May 17, 2011, 12:55 PM
>
>
>
> Thomas More and "birth control"? Heaven forefend!
>
> Even the ancients had their methods; that's why the Bible had to forbid the practice. How else does a desert people keep its population vital but by going "forth and multiplying."
>
> BTW, someone at work told me the Rapture comes this Saturday. The rest of go in October.
> Couldn't even wait for 2012, I guess.... See ya'll!
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Dissertation Help!
>
>
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>> After the death of his first wife, as a widower More could have entered some of the holy orders. Instead, he immediately remarried. He had children, young ones -- his wife had died after the birth of the seventh in something like ten years
>
> Correction -- More's wife, Jane Colt. died after the birth of her fourth child in six years. More's mother, Agnes Graunger, is the one who died following the birth of her seventh child in ten years.
>
> Being bred to death was a not-uncommon cause of female mortality, even though forms of birth control were available even then.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Paul wrote:
<snip>
> Now as religion was such an important part of medieval life, and religious hypocrisy is nothing new, I do not see why the subject cannot be allowed, up to a point.

Carol responds:
For example, in the context of the recent discussion of executions, we could point out the large number of executions for witchcraft, heresy, and similar matters under the Lancastrians and the Tudors as compared with zero for the Yorkists, Edward IV and Richard III.

Carol, noting that not all Christians are waiting for the Rapture and some really do their best to be Christlike