Elizabeth of York
Elizabeth of York
2003-01-09 02:56:09
Hi Everyone,
I'm new to this great discussion group
so please bear with me. I know this is kinda
off the current thread but I want to share
something I learned on the History channel that
really surprised me. It was a program on Henry VIII
The subject was about his mother, Elizabeth of York.
The narrator said she was a very tall girl, 5'11.!!!!
He showed a body mold made from her clothes(I'm really
not sure what that was).
I was under the impression that people
in general back then were much shorter than now.
I always pictured Elizabeth Woodville and daughter as
very petite women. But I guess Elizabeth of York took
after her Plantagenet side of the family. Henry VIII
certainly did. They said he inherited his height and
girth from his grandfather Edward IV.
One more little tidbit I found interesting.
Elizabeth of York was the model for the Queen of Hearts
in the English card deck.
Kat
I'm new to this great discussion group
so please bear with me. I know this is kinda
off the current thread but I want to share
something I learned on the History channel that
really surprised me. It was a program on Henry VIII
The subject was about his mother, Elizabeth of York.
The narrator said she was a very tall girl, 5'11.!!!!
He showed a body mold made from her clothes(I'm really
not sure what that was).
I was under the impression that people
in general back then were much shorter than now.
I always pictured Elizabeth Woodville and daughter as
very petite women. But I guess Elizabeth of York took
after her Plantagenet side of the family. Henry VIII
certainly did. They said he inherited his height and
girth from his grandfather Edward IV.
One more little tidbit I found interesting.
Elizabeth of York was the model for the Queen of Hearts
in the English card deck.
Kat
Re: Elizabeth of York
2003-01-09 06:04:29
Hi Kat - I would be careful of any 'facts' gleaned from the History
channel. They ran a 'War of the Roses' program a few years ago that
was filled with simplistic, glaring errors. One wonders what their
fact checkers do all day. That is not to dismiss your post about E
of Yorks' height. It may very well be possible, given the 6'4" height
assigned to her father, Edward IV. In any case, after having
witnessed so many errors in a program about a time in history I knew
something about, I have felt since that I could never trust their
presentations about historical personages - like Napolean - that I
knew very little about. This is the problem with media - TV, radio
and newspapers. The powers that be seem more interested in numbers -
viewership, readers - than in 'facts.' It's fine for them to make
conjectures or proffer theories, as long as they are identified as
such and as long as the simplest facts of, say, dates, or family
relationships, are correct. It would be interesting to do more
research on the topic, if only to glean what E of York possibly
looked like. But as far as I know, very little medieval clothing
survives in this day and age. I don't know what kind of body mold
they (who is they?) might have made from her clothes (where are her
clothes?). The V&A in London has an extensive collection of
clothing, but other than *pieces* of medieval clothing and an odd
shoe or belt here and there, there are no dresses, etc.
Ecclesiastical clothing usually survives because these garments
were/are used infrequently and were stored and handled carefully for
100's of years. Usually what survives from the medieval period is
fragments of cloth. Interesting enough, I met a clothing restorer in
Florence last year who has been working on the burial gown of
Eleanora of Toledo (wife of Cosimo I) for 10 years. The garment was
exhumed from her tomb and they are piecing together the fragments in
order to eventually put the gown on display in Florence (not sure
where - perhaps the Palazzo Pitti). Another example is Charlotte
Bronte's dress, on view at the Haworth Museum in Yorkshire, which
indicates how small a woman she was. Such objects can be thrilling
in that they give one a visual sense of the person one has only read
about. If you have any more information as to the E of York garments
in question, please do let us know. And welcome!
--- In , "bbkakes20002000
<katgrega@a...>" <katgrega@a...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
> I'm new to this great discussion group
> so please bear with me. I know this is kinda
> off the current thread but I want to share
> something I learned on the History channel that
> really surprised me. It was a program on Henry VIII
> The subject was about his mother, Elizabeth of York.
> The narrator said she was a very tall girl, 5'11.!!!!
> He showed a body mold made from her clothes(I'm really
> not sure what that was).
> I was under the impression that people
> in general back then were much shorter than now.
> I always pictured Elizabeth Woodville and daughter as
> very petite women. But I guess Elizabeth of York took
> after her Plantagenet side of the family. Henry VIII
> certainly did. They said he inherited his height and
> girth from his grandfather Edward IV.
> One more little tidbit I found interesting.
> Elizabeth of York was the model for the Queen of Hearts
> in the English card deck.
> Kat
channel. They ran a 'War of the Roses' program a few years ago that
was filled with simplistic, glaring errors. One wonders what their
fact checkers do all day. That is not to dismiss your post about E
of Yorks' height. It may very well be possible, given the 6'4" height
assigned to her father, Edward IV. In any case, after having
witnessed so many errors in a program about a time in history I knew
something about, I have felt since that I could never trust their
presentations about historical personages - like Napolean - that I
knew very little about. This is the problem with media - TV, radio
and newspapers. The powers that be seem more interested in numbers -
viewership, readers - than in 'facts.' It's fine for them to make
conjectures or proffer theories, as long as they are identified as
such and as long as the simplest facts of, say, dates, or family
relationships, are correct. It would be interesting to do more
research on the topic, if only to glean what E of York possibly
looked like. But as far as I know, very little medieval clothing
survives in this day and age. I don't know what kind of body mold
they (who is they?) might have made from her clothes (where are her
clothes?). The V&A in London has an extensive collection of
clothing, but other than *pieces* of medieval clothing and an odd
shoe or belt here and there, there are no dresses, etc.
Ecclesiastical clothing usually survives because these garments
were/are used infrequently and were stored and handled carefully for
100's of years. Usually what survives from the medieval period is
fragments of cloth. Interesting enough, I met a clothing restorer in
Florence last year who has been working on the burial gown of
Eleanora of Toledo (wife of Cosimo I) for 10 years. The garment was
exhumed from her tomb and they are piecing together the fragments in
order to eventually put the gown on display in Florence (not sure
where - perhaps the Palazzo Pitti). Another example is Charlotte
Bronte's dress, on view at the Haworth Museum in Yorkshire, which
indicates how small a woman she was. Such objects can be thrilling
in that they give one a visual sense of the person one has only read
about. If you have any more information as to the E of York garments
in question, please do let us know. And welcome!
--- In , "bbkakes20002000
<katgrega@a...>" <katgrega@a...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
> I'm new to this great discussion group
> so please bear with me. I know this is kinda
> off the current thread but I want to share
> something I learned on the History channel that
> really surprised me. It was a program on Henry VIII
> The subject was about his mother, Elizabeth of York.
> The narrator said she was a very tall girl, 5'11.!!!!
> He showed a body mold made from her clothes(I'm really
> not sure what that was).
> I was under the impression that people
> in general back then were much shorter than now.
> I always pictured Elizabeth Woodville and daughter as
> very petite women. But I guess Elizabeth of York took
> after her Plantagenet side of the family. Henry VIII
> certainly did. They said he inherited his height and
> girth from his grandfather Edward IV.
> One more little tidbit I found interesting.
> Elizabeth of York was the model for the Queen of Hearts
> in the English card deck.
> Kat
Re: Elizabeth of York
2003-01-09 08:30:26
--- In , "Kim <kim@d...>"
<kim@d...> wrote:
It would be interesting to do more
> research on the topic, if only to glean what E of York possibly
> looked like. But as far as I know, very little medieval clothing
> survives in this day and age. I don't know what kind of body mold
> they (who is they?) might have made from her clothes (where are her
> clothes?). The V&A in London has an extensive collection of
> clothing, but other than *pieces* of medieval clothing and an odd
> shoe or belt here and there, there are no dresses, etc.
> Ecclesiastical clothing usually survives because these garments
> were/are used infrequently and were stored and handled carefully for
> 100's of years. Usually what survives from the medieval period is
> fragments of cloth. Interesting enough, I met a clothing restorer
in
> Florence last year who has been working on the burial gown of
> Eleanora of Toledo (wife of Cosimo I) for 10 years. The garment was
> exhumed from her tomb and they are piecing together the fragments in
> order to eventually put the gown on display in Florence (not sure
> where - perhaps the Palazzo Pitti). Another example is Charlotte
> Bronte's dress, on view at the Haworth Museum in Yorkshire, which
> indicates how small a woman she was. Such objects can be thrilling
> in that they give one a visual sense of the person one has only read
> about. If you have any more information as to the E of York garments
> in question, please do let us know. And welcome!
>
> --- In , "bbkakes20002000
> <katgrega@a...>" <katgrega@a...> wrote:
> >
>
A funeral effigy of Elizabeth of York exists which was kept in
Westminster Abbey where she was buried, together with her husband
Henry VII. The opening of tombs to check vital statistics was
acceptable during the 18th century. I know the tombs of King John,
Edward I & Edward IV have all been opened. During the French
Revolution the bones of kings at St. Denis were thrown into a pit
following the executions of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette My own
feeling is that forensic archaeology, e.g. DNA comparisons, would
benefit from more examinations, especially a check between Elizabeth
of York & her brother: Edward V, who, it is claimed was re-buried in
the Abbey in 1674.
<kim@d...> wrote:
It would be interesting to do more
> research on the topic, if only to glean what E of York possibly
> looked like. But as far as I know, very little medieval clothing
> survives in this day and age. I don't know what kind of body mold
> they (who is they?) might have made from her clothes (where are her
> clothes?). The V&A in London has an extensive collection of
> clothing, but other than *pieces* of medieval clothing and an odd
> shoe or belt here and there, there are no dresses, etc.
> Ecclesiastical clothing usually survives because these garments
> were/are used infrequently and were stored and handled carefully for
> 100's of years. Usually what survives from the medieval period is
> fragments of cloth. Interesting enough, I met a clothing restorer
in
> Florence last year who has been working on the burial gown of
> Eleanora of Toledo (wife of Cosimo I) for 10 years. The garment was
> exhumed from her tomb and they are piecing together the fragments in
> order to eventually put the gown on display in Florence (not sure
> where - perhaps the Palazzo Pitti). Another example is Charlotte
> Bronte's dress, on view at the Haworth Museum in Yorkshire, which
> indicates how small a woman she was. Such objects can be thrilling
> in that they give one a visual sense of the person one has only read
> about. If you have any more information as to the E of York garments
> in question, please do let us know. And welcome!
>
> --- In , "bbkakes20002000
> <katgrega@a...>" <katgrega@a...> wrote:
> >
>
A funeral effigy of Elizabeth of York exists which was kept in
Westminster Abbey where she was buried, together with her husband
Henry VII. The opening of tombs to check vital statistics was
acceptable during the 18th century. I know the tombs of King John,
Edward I & Edward IV have all been opened. During the French
Revolution the bones of kings at St. Denis were thrown into a pit
following the executions of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette My own
feeling is that forensic archaeology, e.g. DNA comparisons, would
benefit from more examinations, especially a check between Elizabeth
of York & her brother: Edward V, who, it is claimed was re-buried in
the Abbey in 1674.
Re: Elizabeth of York
2003-01-12 01:09:39
I, too, saw the program about Henry VIII narrated by David Starkey on
the History Channel. I liked how he emphasized how important she was
in the scheme of things. She was certainly the key element to Henry
Tudor's ambition. Without her his efforts to assume and keep the
crown would have been much tougher if not impossible. She was, after
all, the legitimate heir to the kingdom. Since Richard died childless
it was her right, as eldest child of Edward IV, to succeed. Being a
woman in a man's world it was felt that she had neither the ambition
nor the ability to fulfill that destiny. Richard III's reign had
divided the country so much that many Yorkists found it to their
benefit to support Henry Tudor. His claim to the throne was so weak
that he had to marry a daughter of Edward IV to make it plausible. I
think that the people of England were only willing to accept Henry
Tudor because he was marrying Elizabeth of York. She was much loved
by everyone. It was important for him to be perceived as being
connected to Edward IV and what better way to do that than to marry
his daughter. People were tired of war and wanted peace and saw their
union as a chance to get things right again.
the History Channel. I liked how he emphasized how important she was
in the scheme of things. She was certainly the key element to Henry
Tudor's ambition. Without her his efforts to assume and keep the
crown would have been much tougher if not impossible. She was, after
all, the legitimate heir to the kingdom. Since Richard died childless
it was her right, as eldest child of Edward IV, to succeed. Being a
woman in a man's world it was felt that she had neither the ambition
nor the ability to fulfill that destiny. Richard III's reign had
divided the country so much that many Yorkists found it to their
benefit to support Henry Tudor. His claim to the throne was so weak
that he had to marry a daughter of Edward IV to make it plausible. I
think that the people of England were only willing to accept Henry
Tudor because he was marrying Elizabeth of York. She was much loved
by everyone. It was important for him to be perceived as being
connected to Edward IV and what better way to do that than to marry
his daughter. People were tired of war and wanted peace and saw their
union as a chance to get things right again.
Re: Elizabeth of York
2003-01-12 12:58:50
Well that's the standard interpretation - tired of intermittant
battles
among the great and the good for the last 3 decades is more honest
than
tired of war. Elizabeth of York's popularity was based on quite a
number of
things - the fact she was an English Princess and not a foreign one,
the
fact that she was pious and fertile, the fact that she kept her nose
out of
politics and behaved in a way that a Queen Consort was expected to
behave.
In fairness though unlike her mother she wasn't faced with political
instability and a husband who predeceased her whilst her children
were still
minors (which in itself made her a figure of more political weight
than was
usual for a Queen Consort), nor was she faced with a weak and ill
husband
and a fractious and difficult nobility (which was why Margaret of
Anjou
entered the political arena). An aversion to women in positions of
influence was common at this time across Europe though England was
far less
used to powerful women publicly influencing events unlike say the
French
which was why Queen's who seemed to embody the Christian virtues and
stayed
out of political affairs (or used their influence privately behind
the
scenes only appearing to be powerful to the people that mattered)
were
always greatly loved by the populace. Compare Elizabeth of York
with that
other publicly loved consort Philippa of Hainault say - and compare
Margaret
of Anjou with Isabella of France.
----- Original Message -----
From: <cletus_mcgraw@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth of York
> I, too, saw the program about Henry VIII narrated by David Starkey
on
> the History Channel. I liked how he emphasized how important she
was
> in the scheme of things. She was certainly the key element to Henry
> Tudor's ambition. Without her his efforts to assume and keep the
> crown would have been much tougher if not impossible. She was,
after
> all, the legitimate heir to the kingdom. Since Richard died
childless
> it was her right, as eldest child of Edward IV, to succeed. Being a
> woman in a man's world it was felt that she had neither the
ambition
> nor the ability to fulfill that destiny. Richard III's reign had
> divided the country so much that many Yorkists found it to their
> benefit to support Henry Tudor. His claim to the throne was so weak
> that he had to marry a daughter of Edward IV to make it plausible.
I
> think that the people of England were only willing to accept Henry
> Tudor because he was marrying Elizabeth of York. She was much loved
> by everyone. It was important for him to be perceived as being
> connected to Edward IV and what better way to do that than to marry
> his daughter. People were tired of war and wanted peace and saw
their
> union as a chance to get things right again.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
battles
among the great and the good for the last 3 decades is more honest
than
tired of war. Elizabeth of York's popularity was based on quite a
number of
things - the fact she was an English Princess and not a foreign one,
the
fact that she was pious and fertile, the fact that she kept her nose
out of
politics and behaved in a way that a Queen Consort was expected to
behave.
In fairness though unlike her mother she wasn't faced with political
instability and a husband who predeceased her whilst her children
were still
minors (which in itself made her a figure of more political weight
than was
usual for a Queen Consort), nor was she faced with a weak and ill
husband
and a fractious and difficult nobility (which was why Margaret of
Anjou
entered the political arena). An aversion to women in positions of
influence was common at this time across Europe though England was
far less
used to powerful women publicly influencing events unlike say the
French
which was why Queen's who seemed to embody the Christian virtues and
stayed
out of political affairs (or used their influence privately behind
the
scenes only appearing to be powerful to the people that mattered)
were
always greatly loved by the populace. Compare Elizabeth of York
with that
other publicly loved consort Philippa of Hainault say - and compare
Margaret
of Anjou with Isabella of France.
----- Original Message -----
From: <cletus_mcgraw@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth of York
> I, too, saw the program about Henry VIII narrated by David Starkey
on
> the History Channel. I liked how he emphasized how important she
was
> in the scheme of things. She was certainly the key element to Henry
> Tudor's ambition. Without her his efforts to assume and keep the
> crown would have been much tougher if not impossible. She was,
after
> all, the legitimate heir to the kingdom. Since Richard died
childless
> it was her right, as eldest child of Edward IV, to succeed. Being a
> woman in a man's world it was felt that she had neither the
ambition
> nor the ability to fulfill that destiny. Richard III's reign had
> divided the country so much that many Yorkists found it to their
> benefit to support Henry Tudor. His claim to the throne was so weak
> that he had to marry a daughter of Edward IV to make it plausible.
I
> think that the people of England were only willing to accept Henry
> Tudor because he was marrying Elizabeth of York. She was much loved
> by everyone. It was important for him to be perceived as being
> connected to Edward IV and what better way to do that than to marry
> his daughter. People were tired of war and wanted peace and saw
their
> union as a chance to get things right again.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Elizabeth of York
2006-05-19 20:43:43
Interesting points, Eileen and Katy. I suppose this has been discussed at length before on this list before I joined, but I have to say that Elizabeth of York is really an enigma to me. Given her status as the Eldest Princess, and high expectations of marrying the future king of France, one would not expect her to docilely give in and do what she was told by the conqueror. And if one puts into the mixture her alleged affection for uncle Richard, that makes it even more mysterious. And yet after 1485, she becomes a footnote largely, nothing much more than that wistful (docile?) looking portrait. Did she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of retaining any power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running the show!)? Did she even have a choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed her up right away after Bosworth, and she probably did not have the opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she? Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she may have been practical enough to try and make the best of it.
So many questions...so little to tell us more.
Henry VIII did look some like Edward IV, juding by their portraits. Both also had a propensity to, er, portliness, by all accounts.
Query: did Cecily Duchess of York have anything to do with Tudor and EoY's offspring?
- MargaretA
Message 3
From: "eileen" ebatesparrot@...
Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:31am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Family likenesses
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> t>
>
> I've read that one of the numerous reasons that Henry the Weasel
> disliked Henry the future VIII was his strong resemblance to his
> grandfather, Edward IV.
>Katy
This is the first I have heard about Weasel hating his sprog - another reason life,perhaps,
must have been awful for Elizabeth of York. Hopefully she didnt have to be around
her
husband a lot of the time. Or maybe the reality is she didnt worry a lot about
these things
i.e. bossy mother-in-law, mean husband. I do understand though that he did show
some
tenderness towards her on the death of Arthur - maybe he mellowed in later years.
I do
find it hard to feel sympathetic towards her though - maybe because (to my mind)
she
married the enemy or maybe even, going from her portrait she looks kind of well,
docile,
which I find slightly irritating. Of course I could be entirely wrong and it may
be that she
was very much like her mother whom I would have thought was a strong, passionate
and
volatile woman.
Eileen
So many questions...so little to tell us more.
Henry VIII did look some like Edward IV, juding by their portraits. Both also had a propensity to, er, portliness, by all accounts.
Query: did Cecily Duchess of York have anything to do with Tudor and EoY's offspring?
- MargaretA
Message 3
From: "eileen" ebatesparrot@...
Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:31am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Family likenesses
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> t>
>
> I've read that one of the numerous reasons that Henry the Weasel
> disliked Henry the future VIII was his strong resemblance to his
> grandfather, Edward IV.
>Katy
This is the first I have heard about Weasel hating his sprog - another reason life,perhaps,
must have been awful for Elizabeth of York. Hopefully she didnt have to be around
her
husband a lot of the time. Or maybe the reality is she didnt worry a lot about
these things
i.e. bossy mother-in-law, mean husband. I do understand though that he did show
some
tenderness towards her on the death of Arthur - maybe he mellowed in later years.
I do
find it hard to feel sympathetic towards her though - maybe because (to my mind)
she
married the enemy or maybe even, going from her portrait she looks kind of well,
docile,
which I find slightly irritating. Of course I could be entirely wrong and it may
be that she
was very much like her mother whom I would have thought was a strong, passionate
and
volatile woman.
Eileen
Re: Elizabeth of York
2006-05-19 22:48:45
--- In , Margaret Anderson <megander@...>
wrote:
>
> I Did she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of retaining any
power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running the show!)? Did she even have a
choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed her up right away after Bosworth, and she probably
did not have the opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she?
Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she may have been practical
enough to try and make the best of it.
>
> So many questions...so little to tell us more.
Yes so many questions. all, annoyingly, likely never to be answered. And we can only
wonder about a lot of things. I may be judging Elizabeth a little too harshly - I for one
always think Anne Neville is treated unfairly when she is depicted as some kind of wilting
violet so I shouldnt be doing the same with Elizabeth. Indeed she surely must have found
herself between a rock and a hard place after Bosworth. But I cant help but wonder - there
are no little hints about her kicking up any kind of fuss about anything -nothing to tell us
there was some spirit there. The marriage to Tudor, the delay in her coronation and I
always wonder about this - just supposing Perkin Warbeck was who he said he was (its not
impossible) it seems horrendous to me she did not seem to have attempted to help him in
any way - There is no record she requested to see him/take a look at him in fact If I recall
correctly I think the Weasle sent her away at this time. I cant understand why she didnt
kick up some sort of fuss - Its like she was mute about the whole thing. Did she ever
wonder if he was in fact her brother. She must have done! If so why didnt she pleased
with Weasle to spare him. I remember Marie's message regarding the fact that Perkins
face was smashed in so that he was unrecognisable. These Tudors make your blood run
cold - give me Plantagenent any time - even George for that matter.
>
> >
> Query: did Cecily Duchess of York have anything to do with Tudor and EoY's offspring?
>
> - MargaretA
Yeah, Id love to know that too.
Eileen
>
>
> Message 3
> From: "eileen" ebatesparrot@...
> Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:31am(PDT)
> Subject: Re: Family likenesses
>
> --- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > t>
> >
> > I've read that one of the numerous reasons that Henry the Weasel
> > disliked Henry the future VIII was his strong resemblance to his
> > grandfather, Edward IV.
> >Katy
>
> This is the first I have heard about Weasel hating his sprog - another reason
life,perhaps,
> must have been awful for Elizabeth of York. Hopefully she didnt have to be around
> her
> husband a lot of the time. Or maybe the reality is she didnt worry a lot about
> these things
> i.e. bossy mother-in-law, mean husband. I do understand though that he did show
> some
> tenderness towards her on the death of Arthur - maybe he mellowed in later years.
> I do
> find it hard to feel sympathetic towards her though - maybe because (to my mind)
> she
> married the enemy or maybe even, going from her portrait she looks kind of well,
> docile,
> which I find slightly irritating. Of course I could be entirely wrong and it may
> be that she
> was very much like her mother whom I would have thought was a strong, passionate
> and
> volatile woman.
>
> Eileen
>
wrote:
>
> I Did she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of retaining any
power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running the show!)? Did she even have a
choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed her up right away after Bosworth, and she probably
did not have the opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she?
Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she may have been practical
enough to try and make the best of it.
>
> So many questions...so little to tell us more.
Yes so many questions. all, annoyingly, likely never to be answered. And we can only
wonder about a lot of things. I may be judging Elizabeth a little too harshly - I for one
always think Anne Neville is treated unfairly when she is depicted as some kind of wilting
violet so I shouldnt be doing the same with Elizabeth. Indeed she surely must have found
herself between a rock and a hard place after Bosworth. But I cant help but wonder - there
are no little hints about her kicking up any kind of fuss about anything -nothing to tell us
there was some spirit there. The marriage to Tudor, the delay in her coronation and I
always wonder about this - just supposing Perkin Warbeck was who he said he was (its not
impossible) it seems horrendous to me she did not seem to have attempted to help him in
any way - There is no record she requested to see him/take a look at him in fact If I recall
correctly I think the Weasle sent her away at this time. I cant understand why she didnt
kick up some sort of fuss - Its like she was mute about the whole thing. Did she ever
wonder if he was in fact her brother. She must have done! If so why didnt she pleased
with Weasle to spare him. I remember Marie's message regarding the fact that Perkins
face was smashed in so that he was unrecognisable. These Tudors make your blood run
cold - give me Plantagenent any time - even George for that matter.
>
> >
> Query: did Cecily Duchess of York have anything to do with Tudor and EoY's offspring?
>
> - MargaretA
Yeah, Id love to know that too.
Eileen
>
>
> Message 3
> From: "eileen" ebatesparrot@...
> Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:31am(PDT)
> Subject: Re: Family likenesses
>
> --- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > t>
> >
> > I've read that one of the numerous reasons that Henry the Weasel
> > disliked Henry the future VIII was his strong resemblance to his
> > grandfather, Edward IV.
> >Katy
>
> This is the first I have heard about Weasel hating his sprog - another reason
life,perhaps,
> must have been awful for Elizabeth of York. Hopefully she didnt have to be around
> her
> husband a lot of the time. Or maybe the reality is she didnt worry a lot about
> these things
> i.e. bossy mother-in-law, mean husband. I do understand though that he did show
> some
> tenderness towards her on the death of Arthur - maybe he mellowed in later years.
> I do
> find it hard to feel sympathetic towards her though - maybe because (to my mind)
> she
> married the enemy or maybe even, going from her portrait she looks kind of well,
> docile,
> which I find slightly irritating. Of course I could be entirely wrong and it may
> be that she
> was very much like her mother whom I would have thought was a strong, passionate
> and
> volatile woman.
>
> Eileen
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Elizabeth of York
2006-05-20 00:49:20
i don't know if cecily had interaction with her grand/gr. grandchildren, but she did with william tyrrell's son, james.
Grant from Cecilia, widow of R. Plantagenet, Duke of
York, to Margaret, widow of W. Tyrrell, of the wardship of
James, son of W. Tyrrell; 1462. With seal.
found at
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=c!/inetpub/wwwroot/mss/data/msscat/html/17022.htm&Search=Add.Ch.+16531&Highlight=F
there is also a small ref to lambert simnel on the same page.
roslyn
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , Margaret Anderson <megander@...>
wrote:
>
> I Did she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of retaining any
power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running the show!)? Did she even have a
choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed her up right away after Bosworth, and she probably
did not have the opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she?
Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she may have been practical
enough to try and make the best of it.
>
> So many questions...so little to tell us more.
Yes so many questions. all, annoyingly, likely never to be answered. And we can only
wonder about a lot of things. I may be judging Elizabeth a little too harshly - I for one
always think Anne Neville is treated unfairly when she is depicted as some kind of wilting
violet so I shouldnt be doing the same with Elizabeth. Indeed she surely must have found
herself between a rock and a hard place after Bosworth. But I cant help but wonder - there
are no little hints about her kicking up any kind of fuss about anything -nothing to tell us
there was some spirit there. The marriage to Tudor, the delay in her coronation and I
always wonder about this - just supposing Perkin Warbeck was who he said he was (its not
impossible) it seems horrendous to me she did not seem to have attempted to help him in
any way - There is no record she requested to see him/take a look at him in fact If I recall
correctly I think the Weasle sent her away at this time. I cant understand why she didnt
kick up some sort of fuss - Its like she was mute about the whole thing. Did she ever
wonder if he was in fact her brother. She must have done! If so why didnt she pleased
with Weasle to spare him. I remember Marie's message regarding the fact that Perkins
face was smashed in so that he was unrecognisable. These Tudors make your blood run
cold - give me Plantagenent any time - even George for that matter.
>
> >
> Query: did Cecily Duchess of York have anything to do with Tudor and EoY's offspring?
>
> - MargaretA
Yeah, Id love to know that too.
Eileen
>
>
> Message 3
> From: "eileen" ebatesparrot@...
> Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:31am(PDT)
> Subject: Re: Family likenesses
>
> --- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > t>
> >
> > I've read that one of the numerous reasons that Henry the Weasel
> > disliked Henry the future VIII was his strong resemblance to his
> > grandfather, Edward IV.
> >Katy
>
> This is the first I have heard about Weasel hating his sprog - another reason
life,perhaps,
> must have been awful for Elizabeth of York. Hopefully she didnt have to be around
> her
> husband a lot of the time. Or maybe the reality is she didnt worry a lot about
> these things
> i.e. bossy mother-in-law, mean husband. I do understand though that he did show
> some
> tenderness towards her on the death of Arthur - maybe he mellowed in later years.
> I do
> find it hard to feel sympathetic towards her though - maybe because (to my mind)
> she
> married the enemy or maybe even, going from her portrait she looks kind of well,
> docile,
> which I find slightly irritating. Of course I could be entirely wrong and it may
> be that she
> was very much like her mother whom I would have thought was a strong, passionate
> and
> volatile woman.
>
> Eileen
>
SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Grant from Cecilia, widow of R. Plantagenet, Duke of
York, to Margaret, widow of W. Tyrrell, of the wardship of
James, son of W. Tyrrell; 1462. With seal.
found at
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=c!/inetpub/wwwroot/mss/data/msscat/html/17022.htm&Search=Add.Ch.+16531&Highlight=F
there is also a small ref to lambert simnel on the same page.
roslyn
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , Margaret Anderson <megander@...>
wrote:
>
> I Did she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of retaining any
power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running the show!)? Did she even have a
choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed her up right away after Bosworth, and she probably
did not have the opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she?
Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she may have been practical
enough to try and make the best of it.
>
> So many questions...so little to tell us more.
Yes so many questions. all, annoyingly, likely never to be answered. And we can only
wonder about a lot of things. I may be judging Elizabeth a little too harshly - I for one
always think Anne Neville is treated unfairly when she is depicted as some kind of wilting
violet so I shouldnt be doing the same with Elizabeth. Indeed she surely must have found
herself between a rock and a hard place after Bosworth. But I cant help but wonder - there
are no little hints about her kicking up any kind of fuss about anything -nothing to tell us
there was some spirit there. The marriage to Tudor, the delay in her coronation and I
always wonder about this - just supposing Perkin Warbeck was who he said he was (its not
impossible) it seems horrendous to me she did not seem to have attempted to help him in
any way - There is no record she requested to see him/take a look at him in fact If I recall
correctly I think the Weasle sent her away at this time. I cant understand why she didnt
kick up some sort of fuss - Its like she was mute about the whole thing. Did she ever
wonder if he was in fact her brother. She must have done! If so why didnt she pleased
with Weasle to spare him. I remember Marie's message regarding the fact that Perkins
face was smashed in so that he was unrecognisable. These Tudors make your blood run
cold - give me Plantagenent any time - even George for that matter.
>
> >
> Query: did Cecily Duchess of York have anything to do with Tudor and EoY's offspring?
>
> - MargaretA
Yeah, Id love to know that too.
Eileen
>
>
> Message 3
> From: "eileen" ebatesparrot@...
> Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:31am(PDT)
> Subject: Re: Family likenesses
>
> --- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > t>
> >
> > I've read that one of the numerous reasons that Henry the Weasel
> > disliked Henry the future VIII was his strong resemblance to his
> > grandfather, Edward IV.
> >Katy
>
> This is the first I have heard about Weasel hating his sprog - another reason
life,perhaps,
> must have been awful for Elizabeth of York. Hopefully she didnt have to be around
> her
> husband a lot of the time. Or maybe the reality is she didnt worry a lot about
> these things
> i.e. bossy mother-in-law, mean husband. I do understand though that he did show
> some
> tenderness towards her on the death of Arthur - maybe he mellowed in later years.
> I do
> find it hard to feel sympathetic towards her though - maybe because (to my mind)
> she
> married the enemy or maybe even, going from her portrait she looks kind of well,
> docile,
> which I find slightly irritating. Of course I could be entirely wrong and it may
> be that she
> was very much like her mother whom I would have thought was a strong, passionate
> and
> volatile woman.
>
> Eileen
>
SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: Elizabeth of York
2006-05-20 01:12:20
--- In , Margaret Anderson
<megander@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting points, Eileen and Katy. I suppose this has been
discussed at length before on this list before I joined, but I have
to say that Elizabeth of York is really an enigma to me. Given her
status as the Eldest Princess, and high expectations of marrying the
future king of France, one would not expect her to docilely give in
and do what she was told by the conqueror. And if one puts into the
mixture her alleged affection for uncle Richard, that makes it even
more mysterious. And yet after 1485, she becomes a footnote largely,
nothing much more than that wistful (docile?) looking portrait. Did
she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of
retaining any power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running the
show!)? Did she even have a choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed her
up right away after Bosworth, and she probably did not have the
opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she?
Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she may
have been practical enough to try and make the best of it.
It seems that Tudor had something on Elizabeth of York. It may have
been her physical captivity, in effect. I know she swore to the Pope
that she was entering into marriage of her own accord and without
duress, or something like that. But in reality, what choice did she
have? Marry the weasel or get shut up in some hinterlands abbey
under a forced oath of poverty? That was Woodville's fate. Even if
Woodville's immurement occurred after Eliz of York's marriage, the
threat could have been there implicit.
Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how you
sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her brothers
or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared he/they
were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong answer
could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to Norfolk,
confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up and
die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying her?
Was she trying to protect herself?
It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
Katy
<megander@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting points, Eileen and Katy. I suppose this has been
discussed at length before on this list before I joined, but I have
to say that Elizabeth of York is really an enigma to me. Given her
status as the Eldest Princess, and high expectations of marrying the
future king of France, one would not expect her to docilely give in
and do what she was told by the conqueror. And if one puts into the
mixture her alleged affection for uncle Richard, that makes it even
more mysterious. And yet after 1485, she becomes a footnote largely,
nothing much more than that wistful (docile?) looking portrait. Did
she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of
retaining any power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running the
show!)? Did she even have a choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed her
up right away after Bosworth, and she probably did not have the
opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she?
Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she may
have been practical enough to try and make the best of it.
It seems that Tudor had something on Elizabeth of York. It may have
been her physical captivity, in effect. I know she swore to the Pope
that she was entering into marriage of her own accord and without
duress, or something like that. But in reality, what choice did she
have? Marry the weasel or get shut up in some hinterlands abbey
under a forced oath of poverty? That was Woodville's fate. Even if
Woodville's immurement occurred after Eliz of York's marriage, the
threat could have been there implicit.
Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how you
sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her brothers
or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared he/they
were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong answer
could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to Norfolk,
confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up and
die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying her?
Was she trying to protect herself?
It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
Katy
Re: Elizabeth of York
2006-05-20 20:16:13
this is the first I have heard of her appearing with marks on her
face. Can you give references??
Thanks
Ang
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Margaret Anderson
> <megander@> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting points, Eileen and Katy. I suppose this has been
> discussed at length before on this list before I joined, but I
have
> to say that Elizabeth of York is really an enigma to me. Given her
> status as the Eldest Princess, and high expectations of marrying
the
> future king of France, one would not expect her to docilely give
in
> and do what she was told by the conqueror. And if one puts into
the
> mixture her alleged affection for uncle Richard, that makes it
even
> more mysterious. And yet after 1485, she becomes a footnote
largely,
> nothing much more than that wistful (docile?) looking portrait.
Did
> she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of
> retaining any power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running
the
> show!)? Did she even have a choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed
her
> up right away after Bosworth, and she probably did not have the
> opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she?
> Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she
may
> have been practical enough to try and make the best of it.
>
>
> It seems that Tudor had something on Elizabeth of York. It may
have
> been her physical captivity, in effect. I know she swore to the
Pope
> that she was entering into marriage of her own accord and without
> duress, or something like that. But in reality, what choice did
she
> have? Marry the weasel or get shut up in some hinterlands abbey
> under a forced oath of poverty? That was Woodville's fate. Even
if
> Woodville's immurement occurred after Eliz of York's marriage, the
> threat could have been there implicit.
>
> Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
> Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how
you
> sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her
brothers
> or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared
he/they
> were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
> possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong
answer
> could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
>
> I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to
Norfolk,
> confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up
and
> die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying
her?
> Was she trying to protect herself?
>
> It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
> know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
> woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
> something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
>
> Katy
>
face. Can you give references??
Thanks
Ang
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Margaret Anderson
> <megander@> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting points, Eileen and Katy. I suppose this has been
> discussed at length before on this list before I joined, but I
have
> to say that Elizabeth of York is really an enigma to me. Given her
> status as the Eldest Princess, and high expectations of marrying
the
> future king of France, one would not expect her to docilely give
in
> and do what she was told by the conqueror. And if one puts into
the
> mixture her alleged affection for uncle Richard, that makes it
even
> more mysterious. And yet after 1485, she becomes a footnote
largely,
> nothing much more than that wistful (docile?) looking portrait.
Did
> she marry "The Weasel" because she saw it as her best chance of
> retaining any power (fat chance, with Margaret Beaufort running
the
> show!)? Did she even have a choice? It sounds like Tudor grabbed
her
> up right away after Bosworth, and she probably did not have the
> opportunity to get away had she wanted to. How cowed was she?
> Intimidated? Coerced? If she had little choice in the matter, she
may
> have been practical enough to try and make the best of it.
>
>
> It seems that Tudor had something on Elizabeth of York. It may
have
> been her physical captivity, in effect. I know she swore to the
Pope
> that she was entering into marriage of her own accord and without
> duress, or something like that. But in reality, what choice did
she
> have? Marry the weasel or get shut up in some hinterlands abbey
> under a forced oath of poverty? That was Woodville's fate. Even
if
> Woodville's immurement occurred after Eliz of York's marriage, the
> threat could have been there implicit.
>
> Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
> Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how
you
> sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her
brothers
> or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared
he/they
> were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
> possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong
answer
> could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
>
> I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to
Norfolk,
> confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up
and
> die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying
her?
> Was she trying to protect herself?
>
> It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
> know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
> woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
> something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
>
> Katy
>
Re: Elizabeth of York
2006-05-20 21:02:00
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>>
> >
> Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
> Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how you
> sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her brothers
> or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared he/they
> were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
> possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong answer
> could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
She must have wondered though - When Perkin was executed what must her thoughts
have been?? It must have caused her sleepness nights to say the least.
>
> I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to Norfolk,
> confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up and
> die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying her?
> Was she trying to protect herself?
I think you might well be right here Katy - I have often thought (as you do when your
doing the washing up or something equally boring) that the 'crush' seemed a little one
sided. It was said that Anne and Richard showed her much kindness at court - did she
read a little more into his kindness. Or as you said seeking protection. I would say though
that marrying your uncle is pretty desperate step to take though then again maybe she
was exactly that - desperate!
>
> It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
> know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
> woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
> something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
Katy
If true how awful - may not have been the Weasle though might have been the mother-
inlaw!! :-)
Eileen
>
> Katy
>
>
>>
> >
> Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
> Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how you
> sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her brothers
> or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared he/they
> were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
> possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong answer
> could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
She must have wondered though - When Perkin was executed what must her thoughts
have been?? It must have caused her sleepness nights to say the least.
>
> I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to Norfolk,
> confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up and
> die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying her?
> Was she trying to protect herself?
I think you might well be right here Katy - I have often thought (as you do when your
doing the washing up or something equally boring) that the 'crush' seemed a little one
sided. It was said that Anne and Richard showed her much kindness at court - did she
read a little more into his kindness. Or as you said seeking protection. I would say though
that marrying your uncle is pretty desperate step to take though then again maybe she
was exactly that - desperate!
>
> It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
> know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
> woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
> something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
Katy
If true how awful - may not have been the Weasle though might have been the mother-
inlaw!! :-)
Eileen
>
> Katy
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Elizabeth of York
2006-05-21 01:02:54
why must e of y be considered a helpless "girl"?
she had her mother as a "nuturer" and tutor. she watched her father play the mating game. quite the environment to raise children in if you ask me.
i have to ponder if e of y could have cared less about perkin or lambert. both of these boys/men would have displaced/replaced her in the power position of queen consort and disinherited her sons.
she lived in a "me - first" environment, and had been raised in such. her mother had more to gain from the "pretenders". e of y had everything to lose.
if the either lambert or perkin HAD been proven to be the "rightful" king, mrs h7 tudor would have simply become the ill wed sibling.
what an interesting household...a couple of pampered spoiled brats married to each other for political reasons, each with a mother -in - law who could write books on manipulative power plays. mind you "he" had the upper hand, as he was king by conquest, and she was queen by marriage, and the repealed titilus regis.
and most of all..she was simply a she, in an era where women were chattel.
either you played the game and walked the tightrope or off to the nunnery...or even have some madeira m'dear and don't mind the bitter taste.
somehow, i don't think h7 would have been too heartbroken if e o y had passed on after producing the heir and spare and visa versa.
naggy maggy would have been quite upset if her widdle hankie was lost... but i'm betting bossy bessy would have been thrilled at the prospect of controlling her grandsons via her namesake daughter.
roslyn
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>>
> >
> Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
> Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how you
> sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her brothers
> or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared he/they
> were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
> possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong answer
> could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
She must have wondered though - When Perkin was executed what must her thoughts
have been?? It must have caused her sleepness nights to say the least.
>
> I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to Norfolk,
> confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up and
> die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying her?
> Was she trying to protect herself?
I think you might well be right here Katy - I have often thought (as you do when your
doing the washing up or something equally boring) that the 'crush' seemed a little one
sided. It was said that Anne and Richard showed her much kindness at court - did she
read a little more into his kindness. Or as you said seeking protection. I would say though
that marrying your uncle is pretty desperate step to take though then again maybe she
was exactly that - desperate!
>
> It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
> know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
> woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
> something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
Katy
If true how awful - may not have been the Weasle though might have been the mother-
inlaw!! :-)
Eileen
>
> Katy
>
SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
she had her mother as a "nuturer" and tutor. she watched her father play the mating game. quite the environment to raise children in if you ask me.
i have to ponder if e of y could have cared less about perkin or lambert. both of these boys/men would have displaced/replaced her in the power position of queen consort and disinherited her sons.
she lived in a "me - first" environment, and had been raised in such. her mother had more to gain from the "pretenders". e of y had everything to lose.
if the either lambert or perkin HAD been proven to be the "rightful" king, mrs h7 tudor would have simply become the ill wed sibling.
what an interesting household...a couple of pampered spoiled brats married to each other for political reasons, each with a mother -in - law who could write books on manipulative power plays. mind you "he" had the upper hand, as he was king by conquest, and she was queen by marriage, and the repealed titilus regis.
and most of all..she was simply a she, in an era where women were chattel.
either you played the game and walked the tightrope or off to the nunnery...or even have some madeira m'dear and don't mind the bitter taste.
somehow, i don't think h7 would have been too heartbroken if e o y had passed on after producing the heir and spare and visa versa.
naggy maggy would have been quite upset if her widdle hankie was lost... but i'm betting bossy bessy would have been thrilled at the prospect of controlling her grandsons via her namesake daughter.
roslyn
eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>>
> >
> Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
> Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how you
> sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her brothers
> or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared he/they
> were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
> possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong answer
> could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
She must have wondered though - When Perkin was executed what must her thoughts
have been?? It must have caused her sleepness nights to say the least.
>
> I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to Norfolk,
> confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up and
> die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying her?
> Was she trying to protect herself?
I think you might well be right here Katy - I have often thought (as you do when your
doing the washing up or something equally boring) that the 'crush' seemed a little one
sided. It was said that Anne and Richard showed her much kindness at court - did she
read a little more into his kindness. Or as you said seeking protection. I would say though
that marrying your uncle is pretty desperate step to take though then again maybe she
was exactly that - desperate!
>
> It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
> know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
> woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
> something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
Katy
If true how awful - may not have been the Weasle though might have been the mother-
inlaw!! :-)
Eileen
>
> Katy
>
SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Elizabeth of York
2006-05-21 14:30:41
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>> i have to ponder if e of y could have cared less about perkin or lambert. both of these
boys/men would have displaced/replaced her in the power position of queen consort and
disinherited her sons.
>
> >
>> roslyn
We can, as usual,only surmise on what someone's feelings would have been, especially
someone who lived over 500 years ago - & of course still end up barking up the wrong
tree! Following on from wondering what her feelings were regarding Perkin (I do not
include Lambert here as he was an obvious fake - also it would appear he came to no
harm as a result of his escapade - if I recall he ended up as a spit boy in one of Tudors
kitchens) I also wonder how she felt when she discovered her own mother was plotting to
get her replaced with Perkin/Richard - shock, horror, disbelief, hurt, rage???
Of course Woodville could have been set up - but then again why would Tudor have
wanted to set her up if she had been behaving herself??
Eileen
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > >
> > Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
> > Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how you
> > sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her brothers
> > or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared he/they
> > were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
> > possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong answer
> > could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
>
> She must have wondered though - When Perkin was executed what must her thoughts
> have been?? It must have caused her sleepness nights to say the least.
> >
> > I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to Norfolk,
> > confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up and
> > die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying her?
> > Was she trying to protect herself?
>
> I think you might well be right here Katy - I have often thought (as you do when your
> doing the washing up or something equally boring) that the 'crush' seemed a little one
> sided. It was said that Anne and Richard showed her much kindness at court - did she
> read a little more into his kindness. Or as you said seeking protection. I would say
though
> that marrying your uncle is pretty desperate step to take though then again maybe she
> was exactly that - desperate!
>
>
> >
> > It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
> > know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
> > woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
> > something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
> Katy
>
> If true how awful - may not have been the Weasle though might have been the mother-
> inlaw!! :-)
>
> Eileen
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom
phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> i have to ponder if e of y could have cared less about perkin or lambert. both of these
boys/men would have displaced/replaced her in the power position of queen consort and
disinherited her sons.
>
> >
>> roslyn
We can, as usual,only surmise on what someone's feelings would have been, especially
someone who lived over 500 years ago - & of course still end up barking up the wrong
tree! Following on from wondering what her feelings were regarding Perkin (I do not
include Lambert here as he was an obvious fake - also it would appear he came to no
harm as a result of his escapade - if I recall he ended up as a spit boy in one of Tudors
kitchens) I also wonder how she felt when she discovered her own mother was plotting to
get her replaced with Perkin/Richard - shock, horror, disbelief, hurt, rage???
Of course Woodville could have been set up - but then again why would Tudor have
wanted to set her up if she had been behaving herself??
Eileen
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > >
> > Maybe E of Y chose never to see or meet Lambert Simnel or Perkin
> > Warbeck because nothing good could come of it regardless of how you
> > sliced it. If she indicated that either one was one of her brothers
> > or Edward of Warwick, that would doom him. If she declared he/they
> > were strangers to her, that could remove whatever protection the
> > possibility of royal blood could afford them. And the wrong answer
> > could have brought Tudor's wrath upon her too.
>
> She must have wondered though - When Perkin was executed what must her thoughts
> have been?? It must have caused her sleepness nights to say the least.
> >
> > I wonder, also...was the letter E of Y supposedly wrote to Norfolk,
> > confessing her crush on Richard and wishing Anne would hurry up and
> > die, be somehow intended to sour Tudor on the idea of marrying her?
> > Was she trying to protect herself?
>
> I think you might well be right here Katy - I have often thought (as you do when your
> doing the washing up or something equally boring) that the 'crush' seemed a little one
> sided. It was said that Anne and Richard showed her much kindness at court - did she
> read a little more into his kindness. Or as you said seeking protection. I would say
though
> that marrying your uncle is pretty desperate step to take though then again maybe she
> was exactly that - desperate!
>
>
> >
> > It is interesting to look at E of Y's life and the few actions we
> > know of from the point of view of her being thbe classic abused
> > woman. Not necessarily physically abused. though I seem to recall
> > something about her appearing sometime with marks on her face.
> Katy
>
> If true how awful - may not have been the Weasle though might have been the mother-
> inlaw!! :-)
>
> Eileen
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom
phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Elizabeth of York
2006-05-23 23:40:22
--- In , "amertzanis"
<amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> this is the first I have heard of her appearing with marks on her
[Eliz of York's]
> face. Can you give references??
I'm trying to find where I got that nugget. I don't think I made
it up. Trouble is, I was deeply into R III in the late
eighties/early nineties when I had no similarly-interested person to
discuss it all with. Since then I have moved four times in six
years, and all my notes and research material is packed away in lo
these any boxes.
It is just possible that I have my Elizabeths mixed up, and I am
thinking of Elizabeth Stafford (Buckingham's granddaughter) who was
married to Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. (His first wife was
Edward IV's daughter Anne of York.) Norfolk and Elizabeth had a
notoriously miserable marriage, quarreled violently in public, and
he was hauled before the law after one particularly savage beating
he gave her, when she appeared in public with her face marked and
swollen.
Katy
<amertzanis@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> this is the first I have heard of her appearing with marks on her
[Eliz of York's]
> face. Can you give references??
I'm trying to find where I got that nugget. I don't think I made
it up. Trouble is, I was deeply into R III in the late
eighties/early nineties when I had no similarly-interested person to
discuss it all with. Since then I have moved four times in six
years, and all my notes and research material is packed away in lo
these any boxes.
It is just possible that I have my Elizabeths mixed up, and I am
thinking of Elizabeth Stafford (Buckingham's granddaughter) who was
married to Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. (His first wife was
Edward IV's daughter Anne of York.) Norfolk and Elizabeth had a
notoriously miserable marriage, quarreled violently in public, and
he was hauled before the law after one particularly savage beating
he gave her, when she appeared in public with her face marked and
swollen.
Katy
Elizabeth of York
2006-05-31 18:36:58
Roslyn wrote: i have come to the conclusion that
eliz of york started the rumours she was going to wed
richard, and richard was advised to publically deny
them as they were becoming believable.
****
Have you given any thought to the letter that
Elizabeth of York was supposed to have written to John
Howard, Duke of Norfolk?
I've always doubted that letter was authentic, because
I can't believe that Elizabeth of York was naive
enough to write that she was afraid the queen would
never die. I think that sentence could have gotten
Elizabeth of York--and maybe Elizabeth
Woodville--accused of witchcraft or treason. I don't
think either Elizabeth was foolish enough to risk
that.
Plus, how would the Duke of Norfolk have reacted to
reading that sentence? It's hard to believe he would
have given Elizabeth of York any help after reading
that. Why would he want to get involved with anyone
foolish enough to write something like that?
****
gotta wonder if momma may have had a hand in
"doctoring" anne. remember, woodville and her mother
were accused of sorcery. this would also
indicate they knew their herbs, both healing and
disabilitating effects.
****
I doubt if Richard or Anne would have let Elizabeth
Woodville give Anne medicines. Even though Richard
had made peace with Elizabeth Woodville, it seems
unlikely he'd go so far as to let her get that close
to Anne.
****
richard and anne were both victims in this political
event.
****
I agree. It's one of the shabbiest tricks that
Richard had to endure while he was trying to clean up
the mess that Edward IV left.
Marion
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
eliz of york started the rumours she was going to wed
richard, and richard was advised to publically deny
them as they were becoming believable.
****
Have you given any thought to the letter that
Elizabeth of York was supposed to have written to John
Howard, Duke of Norfolk?
I've always doubted that letter was authentic, because
I can't believe that Elizabeth of York was naive
enough to write that she was afraid the queen would
never die. I think that sentence could have gotten
Elizabeth of York--and maybe Elizabeth
Woodville--accused of witchcraft or treason. I don't
think either Elizabeth was foolish enough to risk
that.
Plus, how would the Duke of Norfolk have reacted to
reading that sentence? It's hard to believe he would
have given Elizabeth of York any help after reading
that. Why would he want to get involved with anyone
foolish enough to write something like that?
****
gotta wonder if momma may have had a hand in
"doctoring" anne. remember, woodville and her mother
were accused of sorcery. this would also
indicate they knew their herbs, both healing and
disabilitating effects.
****
I doubt if Richard or Anne would have let Elizabeth
Woodville give Anne medicines. Even though Richard
had made peace with Elizabeth Woodville, it seems
unlikely he'd go so far as to let her get that close
to Anne.
****
richard and anne were both victims in this political
event.
****
I agree. It's one of the shabbiest tricks that
Richard had to endure while he was trying to clean up
the mess that Edward IV left.
Marion
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Elizabeth of York
2006-05-31 19:48:20
comments interspersed
see below.
marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
Roslyn wrote: i have come to the conclusion that
eliz of york started the rumours she was going to wed
richard, and richard was advised to publically deny
them as they were becoming believable.
****
Have you given any thought to the letter that
Elizabeth of York was supposed to have written to John
Howard, Duke of Norfolk?
I've always doubted that letter was authentic, because
I can't believe that Elizabeth of York was naive
enough to write that she was afraid the queen would
never die. I think that sentence could have gotten
Elizabeth of York--and maybe Elizabeth
Woodville--accused of witchcraft or treason. I don't
think either Elizabeth was foolish enough to risk
that.
-------------
it would depend upon the wording of the alleged letter.
consider the actions of an arrogant young woman, with known power. writing to d.of. norfolk who has benefitted from ric iii becoming king.
do we know how d. of n. felt towards queen anne? was young eliz good at coddling up to older men? i've seen a few in my day. it is amazing what a man's ego will do to gain the attention of a sweet young thing..who just happens to be in the know as to how to manipulate men.
remember who e of y's mother and grandmother were.
remember scruples and morals were for commoners. one could do whatever one wanted, and then go to the bishop and ask for absolution for any sins committed. "confession is good for the soul".
consider if young eliz had stated something similiar to:
" the queen lingers on yet, i'm surprised she has not passed. she is so sickly."
nothing treasonable in that comment. even if preceded by or followed by a comment of her great affection to her uncle.
perhaps the letter was a school girl like attempt to have howard relay e of y's feelings to richard.
the arrogant don't always act wisely.
we have the benefit of surveying the events after they have passed. not as they were occurring. reading between the lines and catching small details can often clarify the picture.
---------------------
Plus, how would the Duke of Norfolk have reacted to
reading that sentence? It's hard to believe he would
have given Elizabeth of York any help after reading
that. Why would he want to get involved with anyone
foolish enough to write something like that?
it would depend on the wording of the letter, coupled with the duke's feelings towards anne and elizabeth.
the duke would also have to tred carefully here..because if eliz did succeed in her plan to marry ric iii..he could end up losing his head.
the woodvilles were very revengeful people.
did the duke think her a silly young woman?..was it him who warned richard's councillors to put a stop to this behaviour?
one thing is for certain..it doesn't matter what day or age or culture we talk about..gossip goes far and wide and can do a lot of damage.
it is human nature to believe the negative if we don't like the person, or to dismiss it out of hand if we do like the person being gossiped about.
seldom, if ever do we follow up and attempt to get both sides of the story. propagandists rely on this societal behaviour.
i just know, the more i read/learn about e of y, her parents/family and environment..the more i feel she is/was her mother's daughter. which means she was a "whatever it takes" personality.
****
gotta wonder if momma may have had a hand in
"doctoring" anne. remember, woodville and her mother
were accused of sorcery. this would also
indicate they knew their herbs, both healing and
disabilitating effects.
****
I doubt if Richard or Anne would have let Elizabeth
Woodville give Anne medicines. Even though Richard
had made peace with Elizabeth Woodville, it seems
unlikely he'd go so far as to let her get that close
to Anne.
you aren't giving woodville credit for being wiley. she wouldn't have to have had direct contact with anne. a trusted go between could slip anne a supposed healing remedy.
nasty people have nasty ways of succeeding.
****
richard and anne were both victims in this political
event.
****
I agree. It's one of the shabbiest tricks that
Richard had to endure while he was trying to clean up
the mess that Edward IV left.
------------------
i'm currently reading holinshed's chronicles. an interesting, albeit slow go. e4 did leave a mess, compounded by woodville/s and buckingham.
buckingham's speech to council regarding woodville being in sanctuary, to me is quite revealing.
she knew about the precontract. (my feeling). she knew that richard would find out about it. she knew her sons would be disinherited. buckingham was quite on to her game/s.
he was a weasel, but he also "knew" woodville. consider the fact, he had been raised in her household, and then forced to marry one of them. he knew what to expect and how to "play".
most interestingly, everything i've read regarding the pressure to have woodville relinquish young richard to ric iii has been attributed to ric iii. now it turns out it was buckingham setting out the wheres and whyfors.
thus far in this part of the chronicle ...buckingham is providing the strongest arguement to have the prince turned over to richard and council.
start at about page 716, i'm currently on 719. quite an informative thought process going on at the council. see below for the url.
it is also interesting reading regarding woodville receiving the great seal. the intent was to crown prince richard should anything untoward happen to his older brother edward. that i had not read elsewhere before either.
it is such small details the modern writers seem to leave out that help paint a clearer picture of what is happening..even if written by tudor propagandists.
roslyn
see holinshed's chronicle at:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1956
Marion
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
see below.
marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
Roslyn wrote: i have come to the conclusion that
eliz of york started the rumours she was going to wed
richard, and richard was advised to publically deny
them as they were becoming believable.
****
Have you given any thought to the letter that
Elizabeth of York was supposed to have written to John
Howard, Duke of Norfolk?
I've always doubted that letter was authentic, because
I can't believe that Elizabeth of York was naive
enough to write that she was afraid the queen would
never die. I think that sentence could have gotten
Elizabeth of York--and maybe Elizabeth
Woodville--accused of witchcraft or treason. I don't
think either Elizabeth was foolish enough to risk
that.
-------------
it would depend upon the wording of the alleged letter.
consider the actions of an arrogant young woman, with known power. writing to d.of. norfolk who has benefitted from ric iii becoming king.
do we know how d. of n. felt towards queen anne? was young eliz good at coddling up to older men? i've seen a few in my day. it is amazing what a man's ego will do to gain the attention of a sweet young thing..who just happens to be in the know as to how to manipulate men.
remember who e of y's mother and grandmother were.
remember scruples and morals were for commoners. one could do whatever one wanted, and then go to the bishop and ask for absolution for any sins committed. "confession is good for the soul".
consider if young eliz had stated something similiar to:
" the queen lingers on yet, i'm surprised she has not passed. she is so sickly."
nothing treasonable in that comment. even if preceded by or followed by a comment of her great affection to her uncle.
perhaps the letter was a school girl like attempt to have howard relay e of y's feelings to richard.
the arrogant don't always act wisely.
we have the benefit of surveying the events after they have passed. not as they were occurring. reading between the lines and catching small details can often clarify the picture.
---------------------
Plus, how would the Duke of Norfolk have reacted to
reading that sentence? It's hard to believe he would
have given Elizabeth of York any help after reading
that. Why would he want to get involved with anyone
foolish enough to write something like that?
it would depend on the wording of the letter, coupled with the duke's feelings towards anne and elizabeth.
the duke would also have to tred carefully here..because if eliz did succeed in her plan to marry ric iii..he could end up losing his head.
the woodvilles were very revengeful people.
did the duke think her a silly young woman?..was it him who warned richard's councillors to put a stop to this behaviour?
one thing is for certain..it doesn't matter what day or age or culture we talk about..gossip goes far and wide and can do a lot of damage.
it is human nature to believe the negative if we don't like the person, or to dismiss it out of hand if we do like the person being gossiped about.
seldom, if ever do we follow up and attempt to get both sides of the story. propagandists rely on this societal behaviour.
i just know, the more i read/learn about e of y, her parents/family and environment..the more i feel she is/was her mother's daughter. which means she was a "whatever it takes" personality.
****
gotta wonder if momma may have had a hand in
"doctoring" anne. remember, woodville and her mother
were accused of sorcery. this would also
indicate they knew their herbs, both healing and
disabilitating effects.
****
I doubt if Richard or Anne would have let Elizabeth
Woodville give Anne medicines. Even though Richard
had made peace with Elizabeth Woodville, it seems
unlikely he'd go so far as to let her get that close
to Anne.
you aren't giving woodville credit for being wiley. she wouldn't have to have had direct contact with anne. a trusted go between could slip anne a supposed healing remedy.
nasty people have nasty ways of succeeding.
****
richard and anne were both victims in this political
event.
****
I agree. It's one of the shabbiest tricks that
Richard had to endure while he was trying to clean up
the mess that Edward IV left.
------------------
i'm currently reading holinshed's chronicles. an interesting, albeit slow go. e4 did leave a mess, compounded by woodville/s and buckingham.
buckingham's speech to council regarding woodville being in sanctuary, to me is quite revealing.
she knew about the precontract. (my feeling). she knew that richard would find out about it. she knew her sons would be disinherited. buckingham was quite on to her game/s.
he was a weasel, but he also "knew" woodville. consider the fact, he had been raised in her household, and then forced to marry one of them. he knew what to expect and how to "play".
most interestingly, everything i've read regarding the pressure to have woodville relinquish young richard to ric iii has been attributed to ric iii. now it turns out it was buckingham setting out the wheres and whyfors.
thus far in this part of the chronicle ...buckingham is providing the strongest arguement to have the prince turned over to richard and council.
start at about page 716, i'm currently on 719. quite an informative thought process going on at the council. see below for the url.
it is also interesting reading regarding woodville receiving the great seal. the intent was to crown prince richard should anything untoward happen to his older brother edward. that i had not read elsewhere before either.
it is such small details the modern writers seem to leave out that help paint a clearer picture of what is happening..even if written by tudor propagandists.
roslyn
see holinshed's chronicle at:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=holinshed_chronicle&PagePosition=1956
Marion
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Elizabeth of York
2008-03-04 21:42:38
Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people every day
but why?
{read in a report of a pub quiz)
but why?
{read in a report of a pub quiz)
Re: Elizabeth of York
2008-03-05 00:15:56
Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people every
day
> but why?
>
> {read in a report of a pub quiz)
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people every
day
> but why?
>
> {read in a report of a pub quiz)
>
Re: Elizabeth of York
2008-03-05 00:18:38
There are some things that you can trust from the History channel
and some you can't. usually if i wanna know anything about
Elizabeth of York or Richard the Third for instance, i read books.
--- In , "bbkakes20002000
<katgrega@...>" <katgrega@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
> I'm new to this great discussion group
> so please bear with me. I know this is kinda
> off the current thread but I want to share
> something I learned on the History channel that
> really surprised me. It was a program on Henry VIII
> The subject was about his mother, Elizabeth of York.
> The narrator said she was a very tall girl, 5'11.!!!!
> He showed a body mold made from her clothes(I'm really
> not sure what that was).
> I was under the impression that people
> in general back then were much shorter than now.
> I always pictured Elizabeth Woodville and daughter as
> very petite women. But I guess Elizabeth of York took
> after her Plantagenet side of the family. Henry VIII
> certainly did. They said he inherited his height and
> girth from his grandfather Edward IV.
> One more little tidbit I found interesting.
> Elizabeth of York was the model for the Queen of Hearts
> in the English card deck.
> Kat
>
and some you can't. usually if i wanna know anything about
Elizabeth of York or Richard the Third for instance, i read books.
--- In , "bbkakes20002000
<katgrega@...>" <katgrega@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
> I'm new to this great discussion group
> so please bear with me. I know this is kinda
> off the current thread but I want to share
> something I learned on the History channel that
> really surprised me. It was a program on Henry VIII
> The subject was about his mother, Elizabeth of York.
> The narrator said she was a very tall girl, 5'11.!!!!
> He showed a body mold made from her clothes(I'm really
> not sure what that was).
> I was under the impression that people
> in general back then were much shorter than now.
> I always pictured Elizabeth Woodville and daughter as
> very petite women. But I guess Elizabeth of York took
> after her Plantagenet side of the family. Henry VIII
> certainly did. They said he inherited his height and
> girth from his grandfather Edward IV.
> One more little tidbit I found interesting.
> Elizabeth of York was the model for the Queen of Hearts
> in the English card deck.
> Kat
>
Re: Elizabeth of York
2008-03-05 08:57:06
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people every
> day
> > but why?
> >
> > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> >
>
Spades, actually!
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people every
> day
> > but why?
> >
> > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> >
>
Spades, actually!
Re: Elizabeth of York
2008-03-05 20:29:46
Are the rest identifiable?
At 08:57 05/03/2008, Stephen Lark wrote:
>--- In , "theblackprussian"
><theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people every
> > day
> > > but why?
> > >
> > > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> > >
> >
>Spades, actually!
Best wishes
Christine
At 08:57 05/03/2008, Stephen Lark wrote:
>--- In , "theblackprussian"
><theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people every
> > day
> > > but why?
> > >
> > > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> > >
> >
>Spades, actually!
Best wishes
Christine
Re: Elizabeth of York
2008-03-05 21:45:05
--- In , Christine H
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Are the rest identifiable?
>
Sorry, I don't know. It was in James Marston's column in the Ipswich
Evening Star - perhaps he has a blog with more information.
> At 08:57 05/03/2008, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >--- In , "theblackprussian"
> ><theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people
every
> > > day
> > > > but why?
> > > >
> > > > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> > > >
> > >
> >Spades, actually!
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Are the rest identifiable?
>
Sorry, I don't know. It was in James Marston's column in the Ipswich
Evening Star - perhaps he has a blog with more information.
> At 08:57 05/03/2008, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >--- In , "theblackprussian"
> ><theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people
every
> > > day
> > > > but why?
> > > >
> > > > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> > > >
> > >
> >Spades, actually!
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
Re: Elizabeth of York
2008-03-05 22:45:10
wikipedia to the rescue..:-))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(playing_card)
there are some links that further explain the identity of the playing cards.
roslyn
Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , Christine H
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Are the rest identifiable?
>
Sorry, I don't know. It was in James Marston's column in the Ipswich
Evening Star - perhaps he has a blog with more information.
> At 08:57 05/03/2008, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >--- In , "theblackprussian"
> ><theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people
every
> > > day
> > > > but why?
> > > >
> > > > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> > > >
> > >
> >Spades, actually!
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(playing_card)
there are some links that further explain the identity of the playing cards.
roslyn
Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , Christine H
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Are the rest identifiable?
>
Sorry, I don't know. It was in James Marston's column in the Ipswich
Evening Star - perhaps he has a blog with more information.
> At 08:57 05/03/2008, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >--- In , "theblackprussian"
> ><theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people
every
> > > day
> > > > but why?
> > > >
> > > > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> > > >
> > >
> >Spades, actually!
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
Re: Elizabeth of York
2008-03-07 14:30:25
Wikipedia says Hearts -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_%28playing_card%29
Richard G
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Spades, actually!
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people
every
> > day
> > > but why?
> > >
> > > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> > >
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_%28playing_card%29
Richard G
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Spades, actually!
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure, is she Queen of Hearts or of Diamonds?
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Our Richard's eldest niece is looked at by millions of people
every
> > day
> > > but why?
> > >
> > > {read in a report of a pub quiz)
> > >
> >
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.