Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.

Hello everyone.

Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.

First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.

I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes. Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.

I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc) death, which I think occurred in 1485.

The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).

Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people thinking.

Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.

Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth, because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people remember the colours of the rainbow…

Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for too long about what I'm writing.

Shalom.

Hi Dan,

Welcome. I think you'll find this forum valuable for all the
knowledgeable and generous people you'll meet here.

I agree with you in that I think Richard of York (aka Shrewsbury)
survived his uncle, I think r3's enemies would have looked for RoY in
Burgundy first. I think that Perkin Warbeck was the real deal and that
r3 had Brampton secure RoY. Also, look at how much r3 rewarded Brampton
both monetarily and by title, being the first British monarch to knight
a converted Jew.

Good luck with your book.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , "Dan"
<dandavidson.tlcp@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel
universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I
intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how
mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope
to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and
interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my
book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the
Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
>
> First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in
my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived
well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
>
> I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the
Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't
responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I
would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes.
Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the
princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would
agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a
work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
>
> I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king,
in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have
emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his
son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine
he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc)
death, which I think occurred in 1485.
>
> The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby
Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was
taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke
(I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret
of York being the duchess at the time).
>
> Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never
be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of
Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people
thinking.
>
> Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
>
> Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the
mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of
York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of
Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth,
because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave
Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
remember the colours of the rainbow…
>
> Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on
this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for
too long about what I'm writing.
>
> Shalom.
>

Hi Joan,

Thanks for the welcome. I am sure I will find this group valuable. I have been pouring over books, TV programmes and films on Richard III, the princes in the tower and the Wars of the Roses

The book I am writing is fiction, and in that book Richard of Shrewsbury did survive, although everybody knew it; although I never thought I'd come across someone who believed that 'Perkin Warbeck' really was Richard of Shrewsbury, because to he honest, I think he was too. It's great to meet someone who also thinks that.

The reason I refer to Richard of Shrewsbury as I do, is to distinguish him from his grandfather (although there are disputes as to the legitimacy of Edward IV), who was called Richard of York. I just call him Richard of Shrewsbury to distinguish him from Richard of York, although Richard of Shrewsbury was also known as the Duke of York. Sorry for the long complicated sentence.

Those are interesting facts about Brampton - never knew them before. Might use them now, if that's OK?

Thanks for wishing me luck for writing the book. I don't expect much of it, but I write because I wish to entertain, I don't write it because I intend to make money.

Also, what is the programme 'The Trial of Richard III' like? I got the special edition of Richard III (Shakespeare's biased and historically inaccurate interpretation), and it includes the programme about Richard III being put on trial (although I presume they don't get an actor to play him, rather they put him on trial post mortem).

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Welcome. I think you'll find this forum valuable for all the
> knowledgeable and generous people you'll meet here.
>
> I agree with you in that I think Richard of York (aka Shrewsbury)
> survived his uncle, I think r3's enemies would have looked for RoY in
> Burgundy first. I think that Perkin Warbeck was the real deal and that
> r3 had Brampton secure RoY. Also, look at how much r3 rewarded Brampton
> both monetarily and by title, being the first British monarch to knight
> a converted Jew.
>
> Good luck with your book.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of--
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan"
> <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel
> universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I
> intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how
> mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope
> to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and
> interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my
> book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
> interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the
> Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> >
> > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in
> my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived
> well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
> >
> > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the
> Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't
> responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I
> would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes.
> Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the
> princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
> disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would
> agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a
> work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
> >
> > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king,
> in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have
> emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his
> son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine
> he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc)
> death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> >
> > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby
> Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was
> taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke
> (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret
> of York being the duchess at the time).
> >
> > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never
> be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of
> Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people
> thinking.
> >
> > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> >
> > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the
> mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of
> York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of
> Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth,
> because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave
> Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
> remember the colours of the rainbow…
> >
> > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on
> this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for
> too long about what I'm writing.
> >
> > Shalom.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Hello Dan, and welcome from me. Always pleased to hear from someone who thinks Richard III had a bad deal, particularly from those people whose interest lay in blackening his name so that they would appear less grimy in comparison.

By now everyone will be used to my oft-repeated argument that we just don't know as much as many people like to think we know. There's absolutely no evidence that anything untoward happened to Richard's nephews while they were in the Tower of London, or that there was any general belief by Richard's subjects (pace Professor Pollard!) that he had them murdered. On the other hand, it might have been a prudent move for the king to eliminate them if he thought that the schemes being hatched in their name were likely to plunge the country into another round of civil war. We just don't know enough about the facts to deduce what Richard's options were

Certainly those who planned to abduct them and restore Edward V to the throne were convinced that the boys were still alive in the summer of 1483 - I cannot see how anyone can read any other conclusion into the events and timelines involved. This is a fact seldom noticed or conceded by traditionalists. Richard knew there was opposition to his seizure of the throne, so if he felt their continued existence was sufficient threat to warrant their murder, it was an odd move on his part to leave them in London and set out on a 3 or 4 month jaunt around the country (he was due back for Parliament only in November). A secret murder and disposal of bodies would have been a tricky thing to arrange at a distance, as is shown by the many weak points of the stories circulated thirty years later - the 'secret' bit being the most difficult of all to engineer! By contrast, a quiet removal by water to the Continent would have been unsensational and unremarked, especially if it had been pre-arranged and was already awaiting a convenient departure date. We'll never know, of course, but most people on this forum are familiar with which of the two scenarios I consider more likely ....

I'd like to think that a novelist will one day pursue this theory, but alas, the emotional possibilities associated with a secret murder (whoever may have dunnit) are usually too seductive. There isn't much drama in being sent off to live with an aunt, unless perhaps you're brought back as a pretender to plague Henry VII.

As for 'Richard of York Gave Battle In Vain', I'm sure there will be a lot of views on this - I'm afraid I can't find any reference in Brewer's. However, if anyone is interested in a different take on the generally-accepted view of how the Duke of York came to be defeated at Wakefield, may I recommend Helen Cox's recent book "The Battle of Wakefield Revisited", which is guaranteed to get the juices flowing! (I won't let the cat out of the bag as I'd rather you guys buy the book or get it from a library - see her website at http://helencox-herstorywriting.co.uk).
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Dan
To:
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:32 PM
Subject: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.



Hello everyone.

Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.

First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.

I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes. Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.

I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc) death, which I think occurred in 1485.

The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).

Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people thinking.

Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.

Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth, because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people remember the colours of the rainbow.

Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for too long about what I'm writing.

Shalom.

Hi again Dan. If you are thinking of young Richard reappearing as 'Perkin' (only one of the identities Henry VII's agents dreamed up for him), you can scarcely do better than read Anne Wroe's book "Perkin, a Story of Deception", another excellent book available in paperback. I believe it has a different title for each side of the pond.

Regarding Sir Edward Brampton, there's a lot of fascinating stuff around this character - an adventurer, a man of action, and a chap with maritime and trading connections. From memory, I believe he converted to Christianity under Edward IV, which was why he took the name of Edward, and he gave sterling service to both Edward and Richard. Just the bloke you'd want to have on your side in a tight corner.

There were two televised 'trials' of Richard III. The one you have is quite entertaining, if only to watch David Starkey make a pratt of himself. Joan will tell you about the other one, won't you, Joan?
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan
To:
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.



Hi Joan,

Thanks for the welcome. I am sure I will find this group valuable. I have been pouring over books, TV programmes and films on Richard III, the princes in the tower and the Wars of the Roses

The book I am writing is fiction, and in that book Richard of Shrewsbury did survive, although everybody knew it; although I never thought I'd come across someone who believed that 'Perkin Warbeck' really was Richard of Shrewsbury, because to he honest, I think he was too. It's great to meet someone who also thinks that.

The reason I refer to Richard of Shrewsbury as I do, is to distinguish him from his grandfather (although there are disputes as to the legitimacy of Edward IV), who was called Richard of York. I just call him Richard of Shrewsbury to distinguish him from Richard of York, although Richard of Shrewsbury was also known as the Duke of York. Sorry for the long complicated sentence.

Those are interesting facts about Brampton - never knew them before. Might use them now, if that's OK?

Thanks for wishing me luck for writing the book. I don't expect much of it, but I write because I wish to entertain, I don't write it because I intend to make money.

Also, what is the programme 'The Trial of Richard III' like? I got the special edition of Richard III (Shakespeare's biased and historically inaccurate interpretation), and it includes the programme about Richard III being put on trial (although I presume they don't get an actor to play him, rather they put him on trial post mortem).

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Welcome. I think you'll find this forum valuable for all the
> knowledgeable and generous people you'll meet here.
>
> I agree with you in that I think Richard of York (aka Shrewsbury)
> survived his uncle, I think r3's enemies would have looked for RoY in
> Burgundy first. I think that Perkin Warbeck was the real deal and that
> r3 had Brampton secure RoY. Also, look at how much r3 rewarded Brampton
> both monetarily and by title, being the first British monarch to knight
> a converted Jew.
>
> Good luck with your book.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of--
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan"
> <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel
> universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I
> intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how
> mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope
> to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and
> interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my
> book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
> interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the
> Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> >
> > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in
> my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived
> well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
> >
> > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the
> Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't
> responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I
> would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes.
> Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the
> princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
> disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would
> agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a
> work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
> >
> > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king,
> in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have
> emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his
> son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine
> he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc)
> death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> >
> > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby
> Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was
> taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke
> (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret
> of York being the duchess at the time).
> >
> > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never
> be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of
> Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people
> thinking.
> >
> > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> >
> > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the
> mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of
> York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of
> Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth,
> because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave
> Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
> remember the colours of the rainbow.
> >
> > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on
> this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for
> too long about what I'm writing.
> >
> > Shalom.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Annette,

Thanks also for the welcome.

I admit that I once held a very bad view of Richard, but this view is mostly Tudor propaganda. The quote 'History tells lies as usual' was from a quote in the book 'Princes in the Tower' by Audrey Williamson, which I am finding to be a fascinating read and a convincing argument so far.

I agree that if Richard of Gloucester killed his nephews he did it to lessen the possibility of the renewal of civil war, and I did watch 'Fact or Fiction: Richard III' and Tony Robinson said that Buckingham believed that the princes were still alive. If Richard killed the princes, he did so reluctantly and with a heavy heart, and it would have been a case of 'do a little evil for a greater good'. I'm not saying we know for sure whether he did kill his nephews, but if he did, it was because he had to.

I believe, as I said before, that 'Perkin Warbeck' could well have been Richard of Shrewsbury. If Richard III spared one of his nephews, and allowed him to live in some degree of obscurity it would prove that, if it were true, that Gloucester did not do what he did because of lust for power. The problem is, no-one can prove either way what happens, and never will.

Thanks for the suggestion of the book. I'll have to get it once I have finished reading the books I'm reading now.

Thanks.

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Dan, and welcome from me. Always pleased to hear from someone who thinks Richard III had a bad deal, particularly from those people whose interest lay in blackening his name so that they would appear less grimy in comparison.
>
> By now everyone will be used to my oft-repeated argument that we just don't know as much as many people like to think we know. There's absolutely no evidence that anything untoward happened to Richard's nephews while they were in the Tower of London, or that there was any general belief by Richard's subjects (pace Professor Pollard!) that he had them murdered. On the other hand, it might have been a prudent move for the king to eliminate them if he thought that the schemes being hatched in their name were likely to plunge the country into another round of civil war. We just don't know enough about the facts to deduce what Richard's options were
>
> Certainly those who planned to abduct them and restore Edward V to the throne were convinced that the boys were still alive in the summer of 1483 - I cannot see how anyone can read any other conclusion into the events and timelines involved. This is a fact seldom noticed or conceded by traditionalists. Richard knew there was opposition to his seizure of the throne, so if he felt their continued existence was sufficient threat to warrant their murder, it was an odd move on his part to leave them in London and set out on a 3 or 4 month jaunt around the country (he was due back for Parliament only in November). A secret murder and disposal of bodies would have been a tricky thing to arrange at a distance, as is shown by the many weak points of the stories circulated thirty years later - the 'secret' bit being the most difficult of all to engineer! By contrast, a quiet removal by water to the Continent would have been unsensational and unremarked, especially if it had been pre-arranged and was already awaiting a convenient departure date. We'll never know, of course, but most people on this forum are familiar with which of the two scenarios I consider more likely ....
>
> I'd like to think that a novelist will one day pursue this theory, but alas, the emotional possibilities associated with a secret murder (whoever may have dunnit) are usually too seductive. There isn't much drama in being sent off to live with an aunt, unless perhaps you're brought back as a pretender to plague Henry VII.
>
> As for 'Richard of York Gave Battle In Vain', I'm sure there will be a lot of views on this - I'm afraid I can't find any reference in Brewer's. However, if anyone is interested in a different take on the generally-accepted view of how the Duke of York came to be defeated at Wakefield, may I recommend Helen Cox's recent book "The Battle of Wakefield Revisited", which is guaranteed to get the juices flowing! (I won't let the cat out of the bag as I'd rather you guys buy the book or get it from a library - see her website at http://helencox-herstorywriting.co.uk).
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:32 PM
> Subject: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
>
> First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
>
> I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes. Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
>
> I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc) death, which I think occurred in 1485.
>
> The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
>
> Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people thinking.
>
> Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
>
> Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth, because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people remember the colours of the rainbow.
>
> Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for too long about what I'm writing.
>
> Shalom.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hello again,

I'll have to look for that book as well. Seems I have a lot of reading to do... I like reading, especially about history and even more especially about the Wars of the Roses.

Sir Edward Brampton - I'll have to do some research on him. An odd coincidence is that I recently converted from Judaism to Christianity, not that it's that relevant. This person sounds fascinating, not the fact that he converted, but that he had a part to play in Richard of Gloucester's court.

I am going to have to watch 'The Trial of Richard III' as soon as possible. Shame the DVDs (the special edition of Richard III) didn't come with subtitles (I have a hearing loss), but I should be OK, after all, I can rewind it. If you both think it is good, then this programme is worth watching, as I assume it shows a fair view of Richard, so it must be good. All history sources are biased, of that we can be certain, but no source is useless. Giving Gloucester a fair hearing is a good thing, and I will definitely have to get around to watching it.

Thanks :)

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again Dan. If you are thinking of young Richard reappearing as 'Perkin' (only one of the identities Henry VII's agents dreamed up for him), you can scarcely do better than read Anne Wroe's book "Perkin, a Story of Deception", another excellent book available in paperback. I believe it has a different title for each side of the pond.
>
> Regarding Sir Edward Brampton, there's a lot of fascinating stuff around this character - an adventurer, a man of action, and a chap with maritime and trading connections. From memory, I believe he converted to Christianity under Edward IV, which was why he took the name of Edward, and he gave sterling service to both Edward and Richard. Just the bloke you'd want to have on your side in a tight corner.
>
> There were two televised 'trials' of Richard III. The one you have is quite entertaining, if only to watch David Starkey make a pratt of himself. Joan will tell you about the other one, won't you, Joan?
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Joan,
>
> Thanks for the welcome. I am sure I will find this group valuable. I have been pouring over books, TV programmes and films on Richard III, the princes in the tower and the Wars of the Roses
>
> The book I am writing is fiction, and in that book Richard of Shrewsbury did survive, although everybody knew it; although I never thought I'd come across someone who believed that 'Perkin Warbeck' really was Richard of Shrewsbury, because to he honest, I think he was too. It's great to meet someone who also thinks that.
>
> The reason I refer to Richard of Shrewsbury as I do, is to distinguish him from his grandfather (although there are disputes as to the legitimacy of Edward IV), who was called Richard of York. I just call him Richard of Shrewsbury to distinguish him from Richard of York, although Richard of Shrewsbury was also known as the Duke of York. Sorry for the long complicated sentence.
>
> Those are interesting facts about Brampton - never knew them before. Might use them now, if that's OK?
>
> Thanks for wishing me luck for writing the book. I don't expect much of it, but I write because I wish to entertain, I don't write it because I intend to make money.
>
> Also, what is the programme 'The Trial of Richard III' like? I got the special edition of Richard III (Shakespeare's biased and historically inaccurate interpretation), and it includes the programme about Richard III being put on trial (although I presume they don't get an actor to play him, rather they put him on trial post mortem).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Welcome. I think you'll find this forum valuable for all the
> > knowledgeable and generous people you'll meet here.
> >
> > I agree with you in that I think Richard of York (aka Shrewsbury)
> > survived his uncle, I think r3's enemies would have looked for RoY in
> > Burgundy first. I think that Perkin Warbeck was the real deal and that
> > r3 had Brampton secure RoY. Also, look at how much r3 rewarded Brampton
> > both monetarily and by title, being the first British monarch to knight
> > a converted Jew.
> >
> > Good luck with your book.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of--
> > This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
> > Awards
> > Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> > website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan"
> > <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone.
> > >
> > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel
> > universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I
> > intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how
> > mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope
> > to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and
> > interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my
> > book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
> > interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the
> > Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> > >
> > > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in
> > my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived
> > well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
> > >
> > > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the
> > Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't
> > responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I
> > would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes.
> > Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the
> > princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
> > disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would
> > agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a
> > work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
> > >
> > > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king,
> > in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have
> > emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his
> > son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine
> > he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc)
> > death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> > >
> > > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby
> > Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was
> > taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke
> > (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret
> > of York being the duchess at the time).
> > >
> > > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never
> > be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of
> > Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people
> > thinking.
> > >
> > > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> > >
> > > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the
> > mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of
> > York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of
> > Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth,
> > because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave
> > Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
> > remember the colours of the rainbow.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on
> > this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for
> > too long about what I'm writing.
> > >
> > > Shalom.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions.


Hi, Dan, and welcome to the group. I'm always happy to hear about someone who is interested in exploring the mysteries of the reign of Richard III, including what became of those pesky "princes in the Tower."

One thing, though -- "Richard of Gloucester" is incorrect. His name was Richard Plantagenet. (So was his father's. So, properly, was his nephew's. Same Name Syndrome...you'll trip over it a lot in your reading and research.) Usually a person is "of" the place he or she was born, to differentiate among others of the same name. By that format, our Richard would have been Richard of Fotheringay, though I don't think I have ever seen him called that. Later, after being made Duke of Gloucester, he would he called Richard Gloucester (no "of") and signed his name thusly, just as John Howard, upon becoming Duke of Norfolk, would be known as John Norfolk.

For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, the younger son of Edward IV. What I'm really curious about is what became of the older boy, Edward. No one ever came forward claiming to be him, as one would expect, since by being the elder, his claim to the throne would trump his brother's.

Kay

Sorry, slip of the language. Yes, his proper name was Richard Plantagenet, as was the name of his father, and his nephew. Richard of Gloucester is just what I call him, in reference to his first name and his position as Duke of Gloucester.

Thanks for the welcome.

Back to the idea that he should be called Richard Gloucester - I bow to your greater expertise in this matter. I was not aware that he should be called 'Richard Gloucester', I just referred to him as 'Richard of Gloucester' in reference to his title of duke of that city, before he became king; and I never denied that Richard was a Plantagenet (although I did never did state that he was either), as the Plantagenets had five lines before the death of Richard II which means that Richard III did bear the surname Plantagenet.

Also, a bit off topic, but to my knowledge, the Yorkists could claim superior matrilenial descent, but inferior patrilenial descent (and the opposite for the Lancastrians, although Henry Tudor was descended from an illegitimate line of John of Gaunt, the 'founder' of the House of Lancaster), iirc.

I don't know whether I got all that right though.

I think that Edward V could easily have just died from some horrible illness, as the mediaeval era was a time when disease, and curing them, were little understood.

Otherwise, I agree that 'Perkin Warbeck' was most likely Richard, Earl of Shrewsbury (who was also duke of York and Norfolk, I think).

Thanks

Dan

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions.
>
>
> Hi, Dan, and welcome to the group. I'm always happy to hear about someone who is interested in exploring the mysteries of the reign of Richard III, including what became of those pesky "princes in the Tower."
>
> One thing, though -- "Richard of Gloucester" is incorrect. His name was Richard Plantagenet. (So was his father's. So, properly, was his nephew's. Same Name Syndrome...you'll trip over it a lot in your reading and research.) Usually a person is "of" the place he or she was born, to differentiate among others of the same name. By that format, our Richard would have been Richard of Fotheringay, though I don't think I have ever seen him called that. Later, after being made Duke of Gloucester, he would he called Richard Gloucester (no "of") and signed his name thusly, just as John Howard, upon becoming Duke of Norfolk, would be known as John Norfolk.
>
> For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, the younger son of Edward IV. What I'm really curious about is what became of the older boy, Edward. No one ever came forward claiming to be him, as one would expect, since by being the elder, his claim to the throne would trump his brother's.
>
> Kay
>

And thanks for pointing out my mistake, and explaining it. :)

--- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, slip of the language. Yes, his proper name was Richard Plantagenet, as was the name of his father, and his nephew. Richard of Gloucester is just what I call him, in reference to his first name and his position as Duke of Gloucester.
>
> Thanks for the welcome.
>
> Back to the idea that he should be called Richard Gloucester - I bow to your greater expertise in this matter. I was not aware that he should be called 'Richard Gloucester', I just referred to him as 'Richard of Gloucester' in reference to his title of duke of that city, before he became king; and I never denied that Richard was a Plantagenet (although I did never did state that he was either), as the Plantagenets had five lines before the death of Richard II which means that Richard III did bear the surname Plantagenet.
>
> Also, a bit off topic, but to my knowledge, the Yorkists could claim superior matrilenial descent, but inferior patrilenial descent (and the opposite for the Lancastrians, although Henry Tudor was descended from an illegitimate line of John of Gaunt, the 'founder' of the House of Lancaster), iirc.
>
> I don't know whether I got all that right though.
>
> I think that Edward V could easily have just died from some horrible illness, as the mediaeval era was a time when disease, and curing them, were little understood.
>
> Otherwise, I agree that 'Perkin Warbeck' was most likely Richard, Earl of Shrewsbury (who was also duke of York and Norfolk, I think).
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone.
> > >
> > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions.
> >
> >
> > Hi, Dan, and welcome to the group. I'm always happy to hear about someone who is interested in exploring the mysteries of the reign of Richard III, including what became of those pesky "princes in the Tower."
> >
> > One thing, though -- "Richard of Gloucester" is incorrect. His name was Richard Plantagenet. (So was his father's. So, properly, was his nephew's. Same Name Syndrome...you'll trip over it a lot in your reading and research.) Usually a person is "of" the place he or she was born, to differentiate among others of the same name. By that format, our Richard would have been Richard of Fotheringay, though I don't think I have ever seen him called that. Later, after being made Duke of Gloucester, he would he called Richard Gloucester (no "of") and signed his name thusly, just as John Howard, upon becoming Duke of Norfolk, would be known as John Norfolk.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, the younger son of Edward IV. What I'm really curious about is what became of the older boy, Edward. No one ever came forward claiming to be him, as one would expect, since by being the elder, his claim to the throne would trump his brother's.
> >
> > Kay
> >
>

Oh a question, if that's OK?

In my book I have started writing the history behind this parallel universe. What should I call Richard, Earl of Shrewsbury and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to differentiate between the two. Should I say 'Richard Shrewsbury' and 'Richard Gloucester'?

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions.
>
>
> Hi, Dan, and welcome to the group. I'm always happy to hear about someone who is interested in exploring the mysteries of the reign of Richard III, including what became of those pesky "princes in the Tower."
>
> One thing, though -- "Richard of Gloucester" is incorrect. His name was Richard Plantagenet. (So was his father's. So, properly, was his nephew's. Same Name Syndrome...you'll trip over it a lot in your reading and research.) Usually a person is "of" the place he or she was born, to differentiate among others of the same name. By that format, our Richard would have been Richard of Fotheringay, though I don't think I have ever seen him called that. Later, after being made Duke of Gloucester, he would he called Richard Gloucester (no "of") and signed his name thusly, just as John Howard, upon becoming Duke of Norfolk, would be known as John Norfolk.
>
> For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, the younger son of Edward IV. What I'm really curious about is what became of the older boy, Edward. No one ever came forward claiming to be him, as one would expect, since by being the elder, his claim to the throne would trump his brother's.
>
> Kay
>

Richard was never Earl of Shrewsbury, that title stil resided with the Talbots.
He was Duke of York, which from his time onwards tended to be given to the 2nd son of the sovereign. For example Henry VIII was Duke of York before the death of his elder brother. Of course Dukedoms descend in the male line only, so no "new" house of York has been established very long; the present holder has only daughters so it will become extinct again on his death.
Richard "of Shrewsbury" (his place of birth) was married to the Mowbray heiress, Anne, in childhood and made Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Nottingham in her right. However the titles and lands were entailed on Richard even if Anne died childless, which she did when still herself a child. This was to the exclusion of Lords Howard and Berkeley, the true heirs of the Mowbrays, and consequently supporters of Gloucester, who on becoming King shared out the inheritance between the new Duke of Norfolk (Howard) and Earl of Nottingham (Berkeley).

a piece on Duarte Brandao:

http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/15735


--- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@...> wrote:
>
> Oh a question, if that's OK?
>
> In my book I have started writing the history behind this parallel universe. What should I call Richard, Earl of Shrewsbury and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to differentiate between the two. Should I say 'Richard Shrewsbury' and 'Richard Gloucester'?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone.
> > >
> > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions.
> >
> >
> > Hi, Dan, and welcome to the group. I'm always happy to hear about someone who is interested in exploring the mysteries of the reign of Richard III, including what became of those pesky "princes in the Tower."
> >
> > One thing, though -- "Richard of Gloucester" is incorrect. His name was Richard Plantagenet. (So was his father's. So, properly, was his nephew's. Same Name Syndrome...you'll trip over it a lot in your reading and research.) Usually a person is "of" the place he or she was born, to differentiate among others of the same name. By that format, our Richard would have been Richard of Fotheringay, though I don't think I have ever seen him called that. Later, after being made Duke of Gloucester, he would he called Richard Gloucester (no "of") and signed his name thusly, just as John Howard, upon becoming Duke of Norfolk, would be known as John Norfolk.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, the younger son of Edward IV. What I'm really curious about is what became of the older boy, Edward. No one ever came forward claiming to be him, as one would expect, since by being the elder, his claim to the throne would trump his brother's.
> >
> > Kay
> >
>

Hi Dan - As a writer myself, may I just suggest that you leave these niceties for the time being and simply write your book. So many people I've met have had a great idea for a book but never ever sat down and wrote it, maybe because they were too concerned about putting a foot wrong. The most important thing is to get it down with enthusiasm, using whatever words you want. During the course of your writing and research you'll discover many different ways of identifying characters and their titles, and you'll find yourself automatically adopting whichever seems comfortable. You'll write descriptions and you'll write dialogue, each calling for different ways of referring to characters, some objectively, some with familiarity, some with deference, some with disdain. Just do the writing first, and leave the details for the editing stage. You'll probably change your mind half a dozen times anyway!

One thing you'll have to cope with is that many people gained (and lost) positions and titles during their career, but you as narrator have to refer to them with consistency and clarity, even if it means fudging some issues. Modern writers seldom observe the niceties of 15th-century formulae anyway, even those who write history books! For example, it is almost impossible for any writer not to refer to 'the Princes in the Tower' even though they were no longer 'princes' but 'Lords Bastard' when they allegedly disappeared. Females are even more difficult. Most historians refer to women by their maiden name, simply for clarity; but take the case of Elizabeth Woodville (modern spelling): at various stages she became Elizabeth Grey, Lady Grey, Dame Grey, Queen Elizabeth, then ex-queen, then dowager queen - or queen dowager?- I'm really not sure myself!

So, I recommend you crack on and do your writing. I'm sure we will all point you to the right places to find any answers you need along the way.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan
To:
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.



Oh a question, if that's OK?

In my book I have started writing the history behind this parallel universe. What should I call Richard, Earl of Shrewsbury and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to differentiate between the two. Should I say 'Richard Shrewsbury' and 'Richard Gloucester'?

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions.
>
>
> Hi, Dan, and welcome to the group. I'm always happy to hear about someone who is interested in exploring the mysteries of the reign of Richard III, including what became of those pesky "princes in the Tower."
>
> One thing, though -- "Richard of Gloucester" is incorrect. His name was Richard Plantagenet. (So was his father's. So, properly, was his nephew's. Same Name Syndrome...you'll trip over it a lot in your reading and research.) Usually a person is "of" the place he or she was born, to differentiate among others of the same name. By that format, our Richard would have been Richard of Fotheringay, though I don't think I have ever seen him called that. Later, after being made Duke of Gloucester, he would he called Richard Gloucester (no "of") and signed his name thusly, just as John Howard, upon becoming Duke of Norfolk, would be known as John Norfolk.
>
> For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, the younger son of Edward IV. What I'm really curious about is what became of the older boy, Edward. No one ever came forward claiming to be him, as one would expect, since by being the elder, his claim to the throne would trump his brother's.
>
> Kay
>

Hi,

Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.

So I assume that calling the younger of the princes in the Tower, Richard of Shrewsbury, if Shrewsbury was his place of birth, would be acceptable.

Thanks again for the info. It's much appreciated.

Dan

--- In , "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Richard was never Earl of Shrewsbury, that title stil resided with the Talbots.
> He was Duke of York, which from his time onwards tended to be given to the 2nd son of the sovereign. For example Henry VIII was Duke of York before the death of his elder brother. Of course Dukedoms descend in the male line only, so no "new" house of York has been established very long; the present holder has only daughters so it will become extinct again on his death.
> Richard "of Shrewsbury" (his place of birth) was married to the Mowbray heiress, Anne, in childhood and made Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Nottingham in her right. However the titles and lands were entailed on Richard even if Anne died childless, which she did when still herself a child. This was to the exclusion of Lords Howard and Berkeley, the true heirs of the Mowbrays, and consequently supporters of Gloucester, who on becoming King shared out the inheritance between the new Duke of Norfolk (Howard) and Earl of Nottingham (Berkeley).
>
> a piece on Duarte Brandao:
>
> http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/15735
>
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh a question, if that's OK?
> >
> > In my book I have started writing the history behind this parallel universe. What should I call Richard, Earl of Shrewsbury and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to differentiate between the two. Should I say 'Richard Shrewsbury' and 'Richard Gloucester'?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Dan, and welcome to the group. I'm always happy to hear about someone who is interested in exploring the mysteries of the reign of Richard III, including what became of those pesky "princes in the Tower."
> > >
> > > One thing, though -- "Richard of Gloucester" is incorrect. His name was Richard Plantagenet. (So was his father's. So, properly, was his nephew's. Same Name Syndrome...you'll trip over it a lot in your reading and research.) Usually a person is "of" the place he or she was born, to differentiate among others of the same name. By that format, our Richard would have been Richard of Fotheringay, though I don't think I have ever seen him called that. Later, after being made Duke of Gloucester, he would he called Richard Gloucester (no "of") and signed his name thusly, just as John Howard, upon becoming Duke of Norfolk, would be known as John Norfolk.
> > >
> > > For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, the younger son of Edward IV. What I'm really curious about is what became of the older boy, Edward. No one ever came forward claiming to be him, as one would expect, since by being the elder, his claim to the throne would trump his brother's.
> > >
> > > Kay
> > >
> >
>

Hi Annette,

Thanks for the advice, I do see where you are coming from. I have been researching the 'princes in the Tower', to try and get the parallel universe just right, but I do seem to be focussing on getting the facts straight, rather than getting the story down, so you are right: I am focussing on the little details, and losing sight of the big picture.

The 'princes in the Tower' I do find fascinating, and I am aware that they were bastardised by Richard III, by saying that Edward was betrothed to another woman, which iirc, was practically marriage back in those days, but I'm not entirely sure.

And thanks all for the information. I am still learning, but still do meed input and advice, but as you say, I am focussing on the wrong things at this moment in time.

I'll have to join in in other discussions to get a good overview of the mystery behind the 'princes in the Tower', and, of course, Richard III, whom I hold in a better light compared with Tudor propaganda.

Thanks again for the advice and support.

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan - As a writer myself, may I just suggest that you leave these niceties for the time being and simply write your book. So many people I've met have had a great idea for a book but never ever sat down and wrote it, maybe because they were too concerned about putting a foot wrong. The most important thing is to get it down with enthusiasm, using whatever words you want. During the course of your writing and research you'll discover many different ways of identifying characters and their titles, and you'll find yourself automatically adopting whichever seems comfortable. You'll write descriptions and you'll write dialogue, each calling for different ways of referring to characters, some objectively, some with familiarity, some with deference, some with disdain. Just do the writing first, and leave the details for the editing stage. You'll probably change your mind half a dozen times anyway!
>
> One thing you'll have to cope with is that many people gained (and lost) positions and titles during their career, but you as narrator have to refer to them with consistency and clarity, even if it means fudging some issues. Modern writers seldom observe the niceties of 15th-century formulae anyway, even those who write history books! For example, it is almost impossible for any writer not to refer to 'the Princes in the Tower' even though they were no longer 'princes' but 'Lords Bastard' when they allegedly disappeared. Females are even more difficult. Most historians refer to women by their maiden name, simply for clarity; but take the case of Elizabeth Woodville (modern spelling): at various stages she became Elizabeth Grey, Lady Grey, Dame Grey, Queen Elizabeth, then ex-queen, then dowager queen - or queen dowager?- I'm really not sure myself!
>
> So, I recommend you crack on and do your writing. I'm sure we will all point you to the right places to find any answers you need along the way.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Oh a question, if that's OK?
>
> In my book I have started writing the history behind this parallel universe. What should I call Richard, Earl of Shrewsbury and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to differentiate between the two. Should I say 'Richard Shrewsbury' and 'Richard Gloucester'?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone.
> > >
> > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions.
> >
> >
> > Hi, Dan, and welcome to the group. I'm always happy to hear about someone who is interested in exploring the mysteries of the reign of Richard III, including what became of those pesky "princes in the Tower."
> >
> > One thing, though -- "Richard of Gloucester" is incorrect. His name was Richard Plantagenet. (So was his father's. So, properly, was his nephew's. Same Name Syndrome...you'll trip over it a lot in your reading and research.) Usually a person is "of" the place he or she was born, to differentiate among others of the same name. By that format, our Richard would have been Richard of Fotheringay, though I don't think I have ever seen him called that. Later, after being made Duke of Gloucester, he would he called Richard Gloucester (no "of") and signed his name thusly, just as John Howard, upon becoming Duke of Norfolk, would be known as John Norfolk.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I am also of the opinion that Perkin Warbeck was Richard, the younger son of Edward IV. What I'm really curious about is what became of the older boy, Edward. No one ever came forward claiming to be him, as one would expect, since by being the elder, his claim to the throne would trump his brother's.
> >
> > Kay
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Dan,

I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.

Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)

Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.

People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.

Brian W




--- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.

I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.

Thanks.

Dan

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
>
> Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
>
> Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
>
> People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
>

Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.

What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.

I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.

What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.



Hi Brian,

Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.

I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.

Thanks.

Dan

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
>
> Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
>
> Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
>
> People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
>

Hi,

Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.

And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471, so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.

I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
>
> What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.
>
> I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.
>
> What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.
>
> I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
> >
> > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> >
> > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> >
> > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Dan,

Just out of curiosity ... if you're creating an alternate universe, can't you set your own rules?

(For example, there's an A.U. Ricardian fantasy novel, The Dragon Waiting, in which the Roman Empire never relinquished Britain; Richard isn't king but Dux, York is still Eboracum, etc. A fun "read," by the way.)

Regards,
Judy 




________________________________
From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.


 
Hi,

Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.

And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471, so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.

I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
>
> What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.
>
> I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.
>
> What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.
>
> I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
> >
> > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> >
> > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> >
> > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Dan,

If you want to get your facts straight I can only recommend that you read Annette's book, Richard III: The Maligned King.  I think for any one interested in Richard III, it's an absolute must.

Cheers, Dorothea



________________________________
From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.


 
Hi,

Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.

And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471, so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.

I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
>
> What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.
>
> I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.
>
> What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.
>
> I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
> >
> > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> >
> > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> >
> > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, I agree about the Maligned King. Lucid prose, an essential read,
and very helpful to those of us who want to get things clear. Which is
a must if you want to write about 15th century matters, even if
fictionalized.

Dorothea, thanks, you're very kind about my book. Dan, please bear in mind that although my book deals in facts, actions and events, it is written from the standpoint of attempting to show how these need not be construed as evidence against Richard in the way they generally have been. So it is definitely a pro-Richard book! But I don't expect anyone to substitute my judgement for theirs - that's why I always recommend reading widely around the subject, and in particular reading original sources. And that's why I list and evaluate all my own main sources. I have made my arguments; other people make different ones.

The book's overriding theme is that we don't know as much as we think we know. Indeed, it begins with an object-lesson in what we do and don't know in terms of Edward IV's death, and asks a controversial question: was he assassinated? Some people have spotted my metaphor - you can build a case for the assassination of Edward IV as readily as you can for the murder of his sons.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothea Preis
To:
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.



Hi Dan,

If you want to get your facts straight I can only recommend that you read Annette's book, Richard III: The Maligned King. I think for any one interested in Richard III, it's an absolute must.

Cheers, Dorothea

________________________________
From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.


Hi,

Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.

And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471, so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.

I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
>
> What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.
>
> I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.
>
> What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.
>
> I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
> >
> > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> >
> > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> >
> > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Dan, I’d just like to endorse the general recommendations for Annette
Carson’s book Richard III: The Maligned King.

I believe this is the most important book produced on the subject in the
past 50 years. The depth and standard of research is exemplary, the detail
is admirable, all the relevant situations are brilliantly covered complete
with background, the explanations are readily understandable and the whole
book is extremely enjoyable for anyone interested in Richard III.

As a writer (of fiction) myself, I think this book presents the most helpful
insight into the subject for anyone not capable of going back to original
documentation themselves.

Good luck with the inspiration,

Barbara





-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Dorothea Preis
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 12:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about
why I am here.





Hi Dan,

If you want to get your facts straight I can only recommend that you read
Annette's book, Richard III: The Maligned King. I think for any one
interested in Richard III, it's an absolute must.

Cheers, Dorothea

________________________________
From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...
<mailto:dandavidson.tlcp%40yahoo.co.uk> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I
am here.


Hi,

Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just
remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I
think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville
alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily,
Duchess of York.

And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the
crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with
Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of
Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471,
so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say
George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether
Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because
they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can
definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.

I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me',
or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will
appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute
accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
>
> What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which
Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely
misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really
want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady
Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior
marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act
in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which
set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested
Richard to take the throne.
>
> I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King"
on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go
into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage
is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage
which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be
found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do
better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can
also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de
Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward
and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III
Society.
>
> What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he
married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant
that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why
I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as
long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of
Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were
to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that
title.
>
> I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue,
and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto,
which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I
got his motto right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dan
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Brian"
<wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I
will tell you why.
> >
> > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that
cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also
avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known
as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of
Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you
want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title
he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are
using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> >
> > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he
became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his
inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> >
> > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and
the surname coincide.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dan"
<dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was
called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly
aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him
from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Here here!
Paul


On 17 Oct 2011, at 02:24, Dorothea Preis wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> If you want to get your facts straight I can only recommend that you read Annette's book, Richard III: The Maligned King. I think for any one interested in Richard III, it's an absolute must.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 8:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.
>
> And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471, so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.
>
> I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
>>
>> What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.
>>
>> I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.
>>
>> What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
>> Regards, Annette
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dan
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.
>>
>> I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
>>>
>>> Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
>>>
>>> Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
>>>
>>> People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
>>>
>>> Brian W
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I, too, second this. Excellent.

Judy


________________________________
From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.


 
Hi Dan,

If you want to get your facts straight I can only recommend that you read Annette's book, Richard III: The Maligned King.  I think for any one interested in Richard III, it's an absolute must.

Cheers, Dorothea

________________________________
From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.

 
Hi,

Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.

And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471, so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.

I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
>
> What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.
>
> I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.
>
> What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.
>
> I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
> >
> > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> >
> > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> >
> > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi all,

Sorry I haven't replied until now.

As soon as I have finished reading the books I'm reading at the moment, I'll buy Annette's book, since everybody is recommending it.

And I suppose in the parallel universe my book is set in, I can make up the rules, but the story has history divert in 1483, so I want to get as many of the facts straight as I possibly can, without having to potentially re-write the entire book, especially since it is book one of thirteen.

Thanks all for the recommendation and for the advice. I appreciate it.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I, too, second this. Excellent.
>
> Judy
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>  
> Hi Dan,
>
> If you want to get your facts straight I can only recommend that you read Annette's book, Richard III: The Maligned King.  I think for any one interested in Richard III, it's an absolute must.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 8:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>  
> Hi,
>
> Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.
>
> And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471, so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.
>
> I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
> >
> > What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.
> >
> > I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.
> >
> > What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dan
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.
> >
> > I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Dan,
> > >
> > > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
> > >
> > > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> > >
> > > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> > >
> > > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
> > >
> > > Brian W
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Annette,

Thanks for the information about your book. All sources have their biases and, as you say, I need to try and get as balanced a view of Richard III as I can, so I can write more effectively, although the book I'm writing is very pro-Richard anyway.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Dorothea, thanks, you're very kind about my book. Dan, please bear in mind that although my book deals in facts, actions and events, it is written from the standpoint of attempting to show how these need not be construed as evidence against Richard in the way they generally have been. So it is definitely a pro-Richard book! But I don't expect anyone to substitute my judgement for theirs - that's why I always recommend reading widely around the subject, and in particular reading original sources. And that's why I list and evaluate all my own main sources. I have made my arguments; other people make different ones.
>
> The book's overriding theme is that we don't know as much as we think we know. Indeed, it begins with an object-lesson in what we do and don't know in terms of Edward IV's death, and asks a controversial question: was he assassinated? Some people have spotted my metaphor - you can build a case for the assassination of Edward IV as readily as you can for the murder of his sons.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dorothea Preis
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 2:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> If you want to get your facts straight I can only recommend that you read Annette's book, Richard III: The Maligned King. I think for any one interested in Richard III, it's an absolute must.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 8:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily, Duchess of York.
>
> And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471, so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.
>
> I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
> >
> > What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.
> >
> > I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.
> >
> > What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dan
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.
> >
> > I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Dan,
> > >
> > > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
> > >
> > > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> > >
> > > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> > >
> > > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
> > >
> > > Brian W
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Annette's explination of the "pre-contract" in "Richard III: The Maligned King", is by far the best I've read. 
Vickie


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.


 
Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.

What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.

I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.

What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.

I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.

Thanks.

Dan

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
>
> Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
>
> Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
>
> People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
>

Ah, got it. Yes, better to nail down now than later. I wish you lots of creative energy, then.

Judy 


________________________________
From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.


 
Hi all,

Sorry I haven't replied until now.

As soon as I have finished reading the books I'm reading at the moment, I'll buy Annette's book, since everybody is recommending it.

And I suppose in the parallel universe my book is set in, I can make up the rules, but the story has history divert in 1483, so I want to get as many of the facts straight as I possibly can, without having to potentially re-write the entire book, especially since it is book one of thirteen.

Thanks all for the recommendation and for the advice. I appreciate it.

Thanks,

Dan

I really do know how to spell explanation :)



________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.


 
Annette's explination of the "pre-contract" in "Richard III: The Maligned King", is by far the best I've read. 
Vickie

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.

 
Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me', or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.

What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested Richard to take the throne.

I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III Society.

What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that title.

I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue, and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto, which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I got his motto right.

Thanks.

Dan

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I will tell you why.
>
> Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
>
> Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
>
> People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and the surname coincide.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
>

Hi Dan,

I’d just like to endorse the general recommendations for Annette Carson’s
book Richard III: The Maligned King.

I believe this is probably the most important book produced on the subject
in the past 50 years. The depth and standard of research is exemplary, the
detail is admirable, all the relevant situations are brilliantly covered
complete with background, the explanations are readily understandable and
the whole book is extremely enjoyable for anyone interested in Richard III.

As a writer (of fiction) myself, I think this book presents the most helpful
insight into the subject for anyone not capable of going back to original
documentation themselves.

The slant is certainly pro-Ricardian – but then, that’s the way the
documentation appears to point.

Good luck with the inspiration,

Barbara







-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:59 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about
why I am here.





I, too, second this. Excellent.

Judy

________________________________
From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...
<mailto:dorotheapreis%40yahoo.com.au> >
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about
why I am here.


Hi Dan,

If you want to get your facts straight I can only recommend that you read
Annette's book, Richard III: The Maligned King. I think for any one
interested in Richard III, it's an absolute must.

Cheers, Dorothea

________________________________
From: Dan <dandavidson.tlcp@...
<mailto:dandavidson.tlcp%40yahoo.co.uk> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I
am here.


Hi,

Ahh, right. I see. Thanks. Seems I know a bit, but not too much. I just
remember the betrothal, but was not aware this went so far as marriage. I
think I'm right in saying that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville
alienated Warwick, and to a lesser extent, Edward IV's mother, Cecily,
Duchess of York.

And from what I remember reading, Clarence had ambitions on seizing the
crown, but when Clarence rebelled Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went with
Edward IV into exile. I also think I read somewhere that Richard Duke of
Gloucester, made Clarence betray the Lancastrians prior to Barnet in 1471,
so if there was ever a traitor in the family, we can definitively say
George, Duke of Clarence, was a traitor, but we cannot say for sure whether
Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was a traitor to his nephews, partly because
they may never have had a right to the throne, and partly because no-one can
definitively prove that Richard killed his nephews.

I hope I got this information right, but I am still learning.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there again: Yes, Richard's motto in adult life was 'Loyalty binds me',
or, in the original, 'Loyaulté me lie'. I don't know whether the accent will
appear successfully in my post, so let me confirm that there is an acute
accent on the 'é' of 'Loyaulté'.
>
> What is important for you get absolutely straight is the basis on which
Edward IV's children were determined to be illegitimate. This is widely
misunderstood and misconstrued, and we can go into the details if you really
want, but the essence of the case was not a prior 'betrothal' to Lady
Eleanor Butler but his prior marriage to her. The fact of this prior
marriage is stated in the Act of Accession of 1484, Titulus Regius. The Act
in turn quotes the statements contained in the petition of June 1483 which
set out the grounds on which the three estates of parliament requested
Richard to take the throne.
>
> I've explained this concisely in my book, "Richard III: The Maligned King"
on pages 65-76. There are of course learned articles on the subject that go
into details about the church laws involved, under which the prior marriage
is given the technical term pre-contract, i.e. a prior contract of marriage
which is an impediment to any later marriage. Other explanations can be
found in other books, and for a really thorough exposition you can't do
better than read "Eleanor, the Secret Queen" by John Ashdown-Hill. You can
also take a look at the memoir written in the late 1490s by Philippe de
Commynes, which recounts what was thought to have occurred between Edward
and Eleanor - this is on the website of the US branch of the Richard III
Society.
>
> What it boiled down to was that he married Eleanor in secret, then he
married Elizabeth in secret, and that was a toxic combination which meant
that he had committed bigamy and bastardized his offspring.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why
I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. As usual it is appreciated. I have, for as
long as I can remember, referred to Richard of Shrewsbury as Richard of
Shrewsbury. Yes, he was Duke of York, but it could get confusing if I were
to refer to him as Richard, Duke of York, despite the fact he used that
title.
>
> I will refer to Richard III as Richard of Gloucester in initial dialogue,
and then explain that he signed off as Richard Gloucester, with his motto,
which I think was 'Loyalty binds me', but I'm not 100% certain on whether I
got his motto right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dan
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Brian"
<wainwright.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I would use 'Richard of Shrewsbury' and 'Richard of Gloucester' and I
will tell you why.
> >
> > Richard of Shrewsbury refers to his birthplace - this is a name that
cannot be taken away from him, as his York and Norfolk titles were. It also
avoids any chance of confusion with his grandfather, who is commonly known
as 'Richard of York'. There is no harm in calling him 'Richard of
Shrewsbury, Duke of York' of course if at some point in your narrative you
want to refer to his title. (The only thing is that while he had his title
he would certainly not be *addressed* as Richard of Shrewsbury. If you are
using direct speech you may have to think your way round this.)
> >
> > Richard of Gloucester because that's how he signed himself before he
became King, 'Richard Gloucestre'. That's how he was known, or by his
inferiors as 'my lord of Gloucester' not 'my lord Richard Plantagenet'.
> >
> > People with titles tend not to use their surnames unless the title and
the surname coincide.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dan"
<dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the heads-up on Richard. I just assumed that because he was
called Richard of Shrewsbury, that he was Earl of said city. I am perfectly
aware that he was Duke of York, I just needed a way to differentiate him
from the Richard, Duke of York who fought at Wakefield.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

This morning I sat down with my coffee and my copy of the WSJ only to
turn to the theater section and see the above wretched headline by
Terry Teachout. San Francisco's Curran Theater is presenting Richard
III starring Kevin Spacey, who is playing Richard "as a monochromatic
monster in a leg brace, by turns sarcastic, petulant, and
supercilious." Yes, a leg brace and laughs. Sadly the audience
seemed to enjoy the production.

So not only does Richard have his character assassinated once again by
Shakespeare but he is played by a ranting actor not even remotely
noted for his classical acting ability (although Teachout stated that
Spacey does well playing "unhappy men who despise themselves").
Apparently this travesty will be coming to New York in January if I
have correctly interpreted the article.

Flo

Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.

Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did escape or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have been "Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's identity not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had died by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far from the only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more likely than not that nobody did.

The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between June 1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best to change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all others.

--- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
>
> First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
>
> I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes. Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
>
> I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc) death, which I think occurred in 1485.
>
> The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
>
> Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people thinking.
>
> Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
>
> Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth, because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people remember the colours of the rainbow…
>
> Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for too long about what I'm writing.
>
> Shalom.
>

Hello, Flo! I know nothing of Kevin Spacey (who he?), but it sounds as if he (or the director) interprets the play as written. You could say that Shakespeare only maligned Richard once, and the rest is theatre. Would you ban the play, on the grounds of inaccuracy? It is a great piece of writing, and we're lucky to have it. Best wishes, Nina

Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester the brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under wraps for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for. And dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts, considering the ease with which you can get information from a child - especially if you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....

I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check out Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her wing. Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could go further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: stephenmlark
To:
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.



Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.

Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did escape or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have been "Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's identity not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had died by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far from the only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more likely than not that nobody did.

The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between June 1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best to change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all others.

--- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
>
> First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
>
> I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes. Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
>
> I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc) death, which I think occurred in 1485.
>
> The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
>
> Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people thinking.
>
> Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
>
> Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth, because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people remember the colours of the rainbow.
>
> Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for too long about what I'm writing.
>
> Shalom.
>

Kevin Spacey is a 2 time Oscar winner for American Beauty and The Usual Suspects - where have you been Nina? :-) - and has been running the Old Vic in London for the past few years. He now seems to live in London, as we are more liberal than Hollywood when it comes to what he does outside of his work!!!
The production he did in London was the hottest ticket of the summer, the same production he is bringing to the States. I agree with you about the theatrical worth of the play, and some of the poetry is sublime. The greatest I have seen was the Antony Sher production at Stratford in 1984 when on the night before Bosworth he had the entire audience rooting for him, in spite of what the character had done before hand. I met him a few times during the run, and he knew the truth about Richard, but said he was playing the play, the second longest for an actor in Shakespeare after Hamlet, and considered one of THE parts an actor should attempt if he gets the opportunity.
What we might consider is why Macbeth has never engendered the sense of outrage that Richard has, because the Bard did a hatchet job on the truth regarding the Scottish king, who was considered a good and noble figure who rules well and wisely, and who was able to leave his country to go on pilgrimage to Rome, and it remained at peace during his absence. He was much missed after his fall, as was our Richard after his betrayal.
Paul


On 22 Oct 2011, at 06:40, boyd.nina wrote:

> Hello, Flo! I know nothing of Kevin Spacey (who he?), but it sounds as if he (or the director) interprets the play as written. You could say that Shakespeare only maligned Richard once, and the rest is theatre. Would you ban the play, on the grounds of inaccuracy? It is a great piece of writing, and we're lucky to have it. Best wishes, Nina
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

OK, I admit I've heard of Spacey. Not sure about this Macbeth chap, though... Wish I'd seen the Sher production; it sounds great!
Best wishes, Nina

Paul-why do you think Shakespeare did such a hatchet job on Macbeth (one of my favorite of the Bard's plays)?  We all know what was behind Richard III, but I don't think I've ever heard why Macbeth was so maligned.
Vickie



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One About the Hunchback?"


 
Kevin Spacey is a 2 time Oscar winner for American Beauty and The Usual Suspects - where have you been Nina? :-) - and has been running the Old Vic in London for the past few years. He now seems to live in London, as we are more liberal than Hollywood when it comes to what he does outside of his work!!!
The production he did in London was the hottest ticket of the summer, the same production he is bringing to the States. I agree with you about the theatrical worth of the play, and some of the poetry is sublime. The greatest I have seen was the Antony Sher production at Stratford in 1984 when on the night before Bosworth he had the entire audience rooting for him, in spite of what the character had done before hand. I met him a few times during the run, and he knew the truth about Richard, but said he was playing the play, the second longest for an actor in Shakespeare after Hamlet, and considered one of THE parts an actor should attempt if he gets the opportunity.
What we might consider is why Macbeth has never engendered the sense of outrage that Richard has, because the Bard did a hatchet job on the truth regarding the Scottish king, who was considered a good and noble figure who rules well and wisely, and who was able to leave his country to go on pilgrimage to Rome, and it remained at peace during his absence. He was much missed after his fall, as was our Richard after his betrayal.
Paul

On 22 Oct 2011, at 06:40, boyd.nina wrote:

> Hello, Flo! I know nothing of Kevin Spacey (who he?), but it sounds as if he (or the director) interprets the play as written. You could say that Shakespeare only maligned Richard once, and the rest is theatre. Would you ban the play, on the grounds of inaccuracy? It is a great piece of writing, and we're lucky to have it. Best wishes, Nina
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Annette wrote: "...I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've
never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me.
..." Actually, that's exactly the scenario that I present in both my
books about Richard III in the 21st-century.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester the
brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be
ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under wraps
for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for. And
dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts, considering
the ease with which you can get information from a child - especially if
you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....
>
> I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come across
this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check out
Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that
Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her wing.
Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could go
further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stephenmlark
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have
only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.
>
> Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did escape
or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have been
"Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's identity
not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had died
by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far from the
only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more likely
than not that nobody did.
>
> The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or
wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between June
1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best to
change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all others.
>
> --- In , "Dan"
dandavidson.tlcp@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a
parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the
tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about
how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would
hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative
and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my
book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the
Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> >
> > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a
story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York
survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
> >
> > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in
the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't
responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I
would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes.
Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the
princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would
agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a
work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
> >
> > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad
king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have
emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his
son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine
he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc)
death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> >
> > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history
whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower,
was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian
duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to
Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
> >
> > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely
never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard
of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people
thinking.
> >
> > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> >
> > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware,
the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard
of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle
of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth,
because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave
Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
remember the colours of the rainbow.
> >
> > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative
discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I
went on for too long about what I'm writing.
> >
> > Shalom.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I do not know why Shakespeare did a hatchet job on Macbeth, but he certainly did.

The whole play revolves around Macbeth murdering good King Duncan in his sleep, then you get the whole "is this a dagger I see before me" palaver, and Lady Macbeth washing away the supposed bloodstains etc.

Whilst Macbeth did take the crown from Duncan, Duncan actually died in battle.  No murder at all, in his sleep or otherwise.

As with Richard, no contemporary records accuse him of tyranny, rather the reverse if anything.

Also like Richard, he died a warriors death in battle, being mortally wounded at the battle of Lumphanan. 



Graham Howard





________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2011, 15:56
Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One About the Hunchback?"


 
Paul-why do you think Shakespeare did such a hatchet job on Macbeth (one of my favorite of the Bard's plays)?  We all know what was behind Richard III, but I don't think I've ever heard why Macbeth was so maligned.
Vickie

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One About the Hunchback?"

 
Kevin Spacey is a 2 time Oscar winner for American Beauty and The Usual Suspects - where have you been Nina? :-) - and has been running the Old Vic in London for the past few years. He now seems to live in London, as we are more liberal than Hollywood when it comes to what he does outside of his work!!!
The production he did in London was the hottest ticket of the summer, the same production he is bringing to the States. I agree with you about the theatrical worth of the play, and some of the poetry is sublime. The greatest I have seen was the Antony Sher production at Stratford in 1984 when on the night before Bosworth he had the entire audience rooting for him, in spite of what the character had done before hand. I met him a few times during the run, and he knew the truth about Richard, but said he was playing the play, the second longest for an actor in Shakespeare after Hamlet, and considered one of THE parts an actor should attempt if he gets the opportunity.
What we might consider is why Macbeth has never engendered the sense of outrage that Richard has, because the Bard did a hatchet job on the truth regarding the Scottish king, who was considered a good and noble figure who rules well and wisely, and who was able to leave his country to go on pilgrimage to Rome, and it remained at peace during his absence. He was much missed after his fall, as was our Richard after his betrayal.
Paul

On 22 Oct 2011, at 06:40, boyd.nina wrote:

> Hello, Flo! I know nothing of Kevin Spacey (who he?), but it sounds as if he (or the director) interprets the play as written. You could say that Shakespeare only maligned Richard once, and the rest is theatre. Would you ban the play, on the grounds of inaccuracy? It is a great piece of writing, and we're lucky to have it. Best wishes, Nina
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Perhaps it's as simple as "bad guys" are far more interesting to many
people. Murder and mayhem likely sold more tickets in Shakespear's day
just as today. Also, with the historical tensions between the English
and the Scots, Macbeth may have made an ideal villain in more ways
than one.

Flo






On Oct 22, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Paul-why do you think Shakespeare did such a hatchet job on Macbeth
> (one of my favorite of the Bard's plays)? We all know what was
> behind Richard III, but I don't think I've ever heard why Macbeth
> was so maligned.
> Vickie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One
> About the Hunchback?"
>
>
> Kevin Spacey is a 2 time Oscar winner for American Beauty and The
> Usual Suspects - where have you been Nina? :-) - and has been
> running the Old Vic in London for the past few years. He now seems
> to live in London, as we are more liberal than Hollywood when it
> comes to what he does outside of his work!!!
> The production he did in London was the hottest ticket of the
> summer, the same production he is bringing to the States. I agree
> with you about the theatrical worth of the play, and some of the
> poetry is sublime. The greatest I have seen was the Antony Sher
> production at Stratford in 1984 when on the night before Bosworth he
> had the entire audience rooting for him, in spite of what the
> character had done before hand. I met him a few times during the
> run, and he knew the truth about Richard, but said he was playing
> the play, the second longest for an actor in Shakespeare after
> Hamlet, and considered one of THE parts an actor should attempt if
> he gets the opportunity.
> What we might consider is why Macbeth has never engendered the sense
> of outrage that Richard has, because the Bard did a hatchet job on
> the truth regarding the Scottish king, who was considered a good and
> noble figure who rules well and wisely, and who was able to leave
> his country to go on pilgrimage to Rome, and it remained at peace
> during his absence. He was much missed after his fall, as was our
> Richard after his betrayal.
> Paul
>
> On 22 Oct 2011, at 06:40, boyd.nina wrote:
>
> > Hello, Flo! I know nothing of Kevin Spacey (who he?), but it
> sounds as if he (or the director) interprets the play as written.
> You could say that Shakespeare only maligned Richard once, and the
> rest is theatre. Would you ban the play, on the grounds of
> inaccuracy? It is a great piece of writing, and we're lucky to have
> it. Best wishes, Nina
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Ahh. That's interesting. The scenario is certainly viable, and I agree that if the princes in the Tower did indeed survive that they would be separated, having read your argument.

Thanks,

Dan

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester the brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under wraps for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for. And dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts, considering the ease with which you can get information from a child - especially if you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....
>
> I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check out Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her wing. Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could go further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stephenmlark
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.
>
> Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did escape or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have been "Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's identity not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had died by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far from the only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more likely than not that nobody did.
>
> The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between June 1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best to change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all others.
>
> --- In , "Dan" <dandavidson.tlcp@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> >
> > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
> >
> > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes. Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
> >
> > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc) death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> >
> > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower, was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
> >
> > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people thinking.
> >
> > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> >
> > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware, the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth, because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people remember the colours of the rainbow.
> >
> > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I went on for too long about what I'm writing.
> >
> > Shalom.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What you say is true. Macbeth was actually a more popular king than Duncan, Duncan was younger than Macbeth, and as you say, Duncan was killed in battle.

Shakespeare has a big tendency to deviate very far from the facts, but then again if he did keep to the known facts, and discard theories and fiction, would anyone have gone to see them, then and now?

Richard III is demonised by the Tudors, and is still seen in a very negative light today, partly because of Shakespeare.

Dan

--- In , graham howard <grahamchoward@...> wrote:
>
> I do not know why Shakespeare did a hatchet job on Macbeth, but he certainly did.
>
> The whole play revolves around Macbeth murdering good King Duncan in his sleep, then you get the whole "is this a dagger I see before me" palaver, and Lady Macbeth washing away the supposed bloodstains etc.
>
> Whilst Macbeth did take the crown from Duncan, Duncan actually died in battle.  No murder at all, in his sleep or otherwise.
>
> As with Richard, no contemporary records accuse him of tyranny, rather the reverse if anything.
>
> Also like Richard, he died a warriors death in battle, being mortally wounded at the battle of Lumphanan. 
>
>
>
> Graham Howard
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2011, 15:56
> Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One About the Hunchback?"
>
>
>  
> Paul-why do you think Shakespeare did such a hatchet job on Macbeth (one of my favorite of the Bard's plays)?  We all know what was behind Richard III, but I don't think I've ever heard why Macbeth was so maligned.
> Vickie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One About the Hunchback?"
>
>  
> Kevin Spacey is a 2 time Oscar winner for American Beauty and The Usual Suspects - where have you been Nina? :-) - and has been running the Old Vic in London for the past few years. He now seems to live in London, as we are more liberal than Hollywood when it comes to what he does outside of his work!!!
> The production he did in London was the hottest ticket of the summer, the same production he is bringing to the States. I agree with you about the theatrical worth of the play, and some of the poetry is sublime. The greatest I have seen was the Antony Sher production at Stratford in 1984 when on the night before Bosworth he had the entire audience rooting for him, in spite of what the character had done before hand. I met him a few times during the run, and he knew the truth about Richard, but said he was playing the play, the second longest for an actor in Shakespeare after Hamlet, and considered one of THE parts an actor should attempt if he gets the opportunity.
> What we might consider is why Macbeth has never engendered the sense of outrage that Richard has, because the Bard did a hatchet job on the truth regarding the Scottish king, who was considered a good and noble figure who rules well and wisely, and who was able to leave his country to go on pilgrimage to Rome, and it remained at peace during his absence. He was much missed after his fall, as was our Richard after his betrayal.
> Paul
>
> On 22 Oct 2011, at 06:40, boyd.nina wrote:
>
> > Hello, Flo! I know nothing of Kevin Spacey (who he?), but it sounds as if he (or the director) interprets the play as written. You could say that Shakespeare only maligned Richard once, and the rest is theatre. Would you ban the play, on the grounds of inaccuracy? It is a great piece of writing, and we're lucky to have it. Best wishes, Nina
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Over the years I've heard quite a few suggestions that Shakespeare's hatchet
jobs were all openly disguised references to living characters in Tudor
politics - where a criticism of the real man would have led straight to the
Tower or a back street stabbing. But our Will was brilliant enough with his
words to make his targets sufficiently obvious to the audience without
endangering himself too openly. Wiping out the actual reputations of the
original characters was not significant - probably no body cared about
accurate history (everybody knew the propaganda machine was in charge, which
is why rumour was more popular than publicly documented fact anyway) and
these people were long dead.
I don't know the truth of this of course, but it makes sense to me.
Barbara


-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Florence Dove
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2011 4:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One About the
Hunchback?"

Perhaps it's as simple as "bad guys" are far more interesting to many
people. Murder and mayhem likely sold more tickets in Shakespear's day
just as today. Also, with the historical tensions between the English
and the Scots, Macbeth may have made an ideal villain in more ways
than one.

Flo






On Oct 22, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Paul-why do you think Shakespeare did such a hatchet job on Macbeth
> (one of my favorite of the Bard's plays)? We all know what was
> behind Richard III, but I don't think I've ever heard why Macbeth
> was so maligned.
> Vickie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One
> About the Hunchback?"
>
>
> Kevin Spacey is a 2 time Oscar winner for American Beauty and The
> Usual Suspects - where have you been Nina? :-) - and has been
> running the Old Vic in London for the past few years. He now seems
> to live in London, as we are more liberal than Hollywood when it
> comes to what he does outside of his work!!!
> The production he did in London was the hottest ticket of the
> summer, the same production he is bringing to the States. I agree
> with you about the theatrical worth of the play, and some of the
> poetry is sublime. The greatest I have seen was the Antony Sher
> production at Stratford in 1984 when on the night before Bosworth he
> had the entire audience rooting for him, in spite of what the
> character had done before hand. I met him a few times during the
> run, and he knew the truth about Richard, but said he was playing
> the play, the second longest for an actor in Shakespeare after
> Hamlet, and considered one of THE parts an actor should attempt if
> he gets the opportunity.
> What we might consider is why Macbeth has never engendered the sense
> of outrage that Richard has, because the Bard did a hatchet job on
> the truth regarding the Scottish king, who was considered a good and
> noble figure who rules well and wisely, and who was able to leave
> his country to go on pilgrimage to Rome, and it remained at peace
> during his absence. He was much missed after his fall, as was our
> Richard after his betrayal.
> Paul
>
> On 22 Oct 2011, at 06:40, boyd.nina wrote:
>
> > Hello, Flo! I know nothing of Kevin Spacey (who he?), but it
> sounds as if he (or the director) interprets the play as written.
> You could say that Shakespeare only maligned Richard once, and the
> rest is theatre. Would you ban the play, on the grounds of
> inaccuracy? It is a great piece of writing, and we're lucky to have
> it. Best wishes, Nina
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Macbeth was actually a more popular king than Duncan,
Duncan was younger than Macbeth (Dan)

Oh, Dan! The cult of youth! Nina (not so young!)

Sorry, Joan, the only book of yours I've read is "This Time", where my recollection is that it seemed deliberately ambiguous about what happened to Edward and Richard, to the point where [I'm trying not to give anything away here!] a certain item of visual evidence was not recognised. Perhaps my memory is at fault, or maybe your scenario is elaborated in the sequel ... I think what I had in mind when I referred to fiction was that I hadn't come across a novel about their story specifically. But I admit my fiction reading is very limited!
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.



Annette wrote: "...I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've
never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me.
..." Actually, that's exactly the scenario that I present in both my
books about Richard III in the 21st-century.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>

--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester the
brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be
ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under wraps
for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for. And
dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts, considering
the ease with which you can get information from a child - especially if
you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....
>
> I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come across
this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check out
Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that
Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her wing.
Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could go
further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stephenmlark
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have
only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.
>
> Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did escape
or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have been
"Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's identity
not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had died
by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far from the
only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more likely
than not that nobody did.
>
> The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or
wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between June
1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best to
change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all others.
>
> --- In , "Dan"
dandavidson.tlcp@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a
parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the
tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing, about
how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also would
hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some informative
and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise my
book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in the
Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> >
> > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a
story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of York
survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
> >
> > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes in
the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester wasn't
responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact, I
would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the princes.
Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the
princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here would
agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted a
work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very true.
> >
> > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad
king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did have
emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when his
son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can imagine
he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker, iirc)
death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> >
> > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history
whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the tower,
was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or Burgundian
duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to
Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
> >
> > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely
never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of Richard
of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get people
thinking.
> >
> > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> >
> > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware,
the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to Richard
of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the Battle
of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to Bosworth,
because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester Gave
Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
remember the colours of the rainbow.
> >
> > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative
discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry if I
went on for too long about what I'm writing.
> >
> > Shalom.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well Macbeth was written to perform to James 1 who reputedly had a morbid fear of witches. But why he chose Macbeth of all Scottish kings I have no idea.
Paul

On 22 Oct 2011, at 15:56, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Paul-why do you think Shakespeare did such a hatchet job on Macbeth (one of my favorite of the Bard's plays)? We all know what was behind Richard III, but I don't think I've ever heard why Macbeth was so maligned.
> Vickie
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One About the Hunchback?"
>
>
>
> Kevin Spacey is a 2 time Oscar winner for American Beauty and The Usual Suspects - where have you been Nina? :-) - and has been running the Old Vic in London for the past few years. He now seems to live in London, as we are more liberal than Hollywood when it comes to what he does outside of his work!!!
> The production he did in London was the hottest ticket of the summer, the same production he is bringing to the States. I agree with you about the theatrical worth of the play, and some of the poetry is sublime. The greatest I have seen was the Antony Sher production at Stratford in 1984 when on the night before Bosworth he had the entire audience rooting for him, in spite of what the character had done before hand. I met him a few times during the run, and he knew the truth about Richard, but said he was playing the play, the second longest for an actor in Shakespeare after Hamlet, and considered one of THE parts an actor should attempt if he gets the opportunity.
> What we might consider is why Macbeth has never engendered the sense of outrage that Richard has, because the Bard did a hatchet job on the truth regarding the Scottish king, who was considered a good and noble figure who rules well and wisely, and who was able to leave his country to go on pilgrimage to Rome, and it remained at peace during his absence. He was much missed after his fall, as was our Richard after his betrayal.
> Paul
>
> On 22 Oct 2011, at 06:40, boyd.nina wrote:
>
>> Hello, Flo! I know nothing of Kevin Spacey (who he?), but it sounds as if he (or the director) interprets the play as written. You could say that Shakespeare only maligned Richard once, and the rest is theatre. Would you ban the play, on the grounds of inaccuracy? It is a great piece of writing, and we're lucky to have it. Best wishes, Nina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On 23 Oct 2011, at 12:13, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> But why he chose Macbeth of all Scottish kings I have no idea.

Unless Malcolm III who defeated Macbeth was a direct progenitor of the Stewarts? Malcolm was all that Shakespeare's Macbeth is said to have been by the Bard, and more. A truly nasty piece of work that most of the realm were glad to see the back of when I think hid brother Donalbain killed him, though I may be wrong on that last point.
Paul

You are right on the first point - the Stewarts were descended directly from Malcolm III (Canmore). On the second, he died in battle, with his son Edward, seeking to restore Anglo-Saxon rule in England - his second wife being the Saxon princess Margaret, almost the heiress of the House of Wessex, who died a few days after him.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Sigh... "You Hear The One About the Hunchback?"




On 23 Oct 2011, at 12:13, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> But why he chose Macbeth of all Scottish kings I have no idea.

Unless Malcolm III who defeated Macbeth was a direct progenitor of the Stewarts? Malcolm was all that Shakespeare's Macbeth is said to have been by the Bard, and more. A truly nasty piece of work that most of the realm were glad to see the back of when I think hid brother Donalbain killed him, though I may be wrong on that last point.
Paul

Hi Annette,

When I was writing the first book, I felt that I had to come up with a
plausible scenario that fit what is documented (not rumored) and
Richard's character (as best as I could reckon based on my research and
discussions with other Ricardians here and other Ricardian discussion
groups.

In "This Time" I wasn't ambiguous about what happened to the princes,
but you might have come away with that impression because I had Richard
only give highlights of what he did to protect the princes and the
details that I did supply were not in a single place in the book. My
reasons for presenting it this was for pacing and to avoid being
expository. The "visual evidence" was there to place doubt in Richard's
mind about whether he'd been completely successful, not that he didn't
separate the princes to protect them.

The second book, "Loyalty Binds Me" does go into more detail and in a
more concentrated form, but I was able to do this because of a major
plot arc that made these details something that the reader needed to
know for Richard's current predicament. I also try to debunk the myth
that the Tower bones are those of the princes.

The third book (still a work in progress) will present a theory of what
happened to the princes after Richard's defeat.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Joan, the only book of yours I've read is "This Time", where my
recollection is that it seemed deliberately ambiguous about what
happened to Edward and Richard, to the point where [I'm trying not to
give anything away here!] a certain item of visual evidence was not
recognised. Perhaps my memory is at fault, or maybe your scenario is
elaborated in the sequel ... I think what I had in mind when I referred
to fiction was that I hadn't come across a novel about their story
specifically. But I admit my fiction reading is very limited!
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 5:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Annette wrote: "...I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but
I've
> never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to
me.
> ..." Actually, that's exactly the scenario that I present in both my
> books about Richard III in the 21st-century.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of--
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> >
> > Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester
the
> brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be
> ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under
wraps
> for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for.
And
> dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts,
considering
> the ease with which you can get information from a child -
especially if
> you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....
> >
> > I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come
across
> this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check
out
> Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that
> Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her
wing.
> Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could go
> further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: stephenmlark
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> about why I am here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have
> only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.
> >
> > Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did
escape
> or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have
been
> "Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's
identity
> not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had
died
> by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far from
the
> only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more
likely
> than not that nobody did.
> >
> > The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or
> wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between
June
> 1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best
to
> change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all
others.
> >
> > --- In , "Dan"
> dandavidson.tlcp@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone.
> > >
> > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a
> parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the
> tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing,
about
> how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also
would
> hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some
informative
> and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise
my
> book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
> interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in
the
> Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> > >
> > > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a
> story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of
York
> survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
> > >
> > > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes
in
> the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester
wasn't
> responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact,
I
> would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the
princes.
> Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the
> princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
> disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here
would
> agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted
a
> work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very
true.
> > >
> > > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad
> king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did
have
> emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when
his
> son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can
imagine
> he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker,
iirc)
> death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> > >
> > > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history
> whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the
tower,
> was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or
Burgundian
> duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to
> Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
> > >
> > > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely
> never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of
Richard
> of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get
people
> thinking.
> > >
> > > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> > >
> > > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware,
> the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to
Richard
> of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the
Battle
> of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to
Bosworth,
> because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester
Gave
> Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
> remember the colours of the rainbow.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative
> discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry
if I
> went on for too long about what I'm writing.
> > >
> > > Shalom.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, wow, it's quite a revelation how much preparation and planning and pacing of story-line has to go into a novel, and I'm sure Dan is getting some valuable insights! Of course I always knew that you had to keep tabs on every character and plot-line, which obviously underlies what you're describing here, but I can see there are multiple layers of other considerations as well. Which is why I just know I could never attempt such a task, I'm too impulsive, I just get excited by something I've discovered or figured out and I have this need to put it down in words, and they have to be my words, not some fictitious character!

It is a while since I read "This Time", and I think we all probably come away from a book remembering the bits that made the biggest impression. Tell me, did you plan this as a trilogy from the start, or did the sequels become evident as you went along? I'm already wondering how you'll be able to present anything about the 'princes' within the context of Richard's perceptions, or even within the context of the historical record, but I guess that's why it needs the creative skills of a novelist to do it successfully.

A while ago I mentioned that I was thinking of writing something about what might have been their 'after-life', and someone else said she was looking at doing that too and would she be treading on my toes, and I said no, not at all. I know it was a female (non-fiction) writer, but can't remember her name. Anyway, I haven't noticed anything like that emerging into the light of day, so I've been thinking of revisiting the idea myself. If so, it may happen that you and I will be working on similar threads - although you'll obviously get there first!
All the best, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.



Hi Annette,

When I was writing the first book, I felt that I had to come up with a
plausible scenario that fit what is documented (not rumored) and
Richard's character (as best as I could reckon based on my research and
discussions with other Ricardians here and other Ricardian discussion
groups.

In "This Time" I wasn't ambiguous about what happened to the princes,
but you might have come away with that impression because I had Richard
only give highlights of what he did to protect the princes and the
details that I did supply were not in a single place in the book. My
reasons for presenting it this was for pacing and to avoid being
expository. The "visual evidence" was there to place doubt in Richard's
mind about whether he'd been completely successful, not that he didn't
separate the princes to protect them.

The second book, "Loyalty Binds Me" does go into more detail and in a
more concentrated form, but I was able to do this because of a major
plot arc that made these details something that the reader needed to
know for Richard's current predicament. I also try to debunk the myth
that the Tower bones are those of the princes.

The third book (still a work in progress) will present a theory of what
happened to the princes after Richard's defeat.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>

--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Joan, the only book of yours I've read is "This Time", where my
recollection is that it seemed deliberately ambiguous about what
happened to Edward and Richard, to the point where [I'm trying not to
give anything away here!] a certain item of visual evidence was not
recognised. Perhaps my memory is at fault, or maybe your scenario is
elaborated in the sequel ... I think what I had in mind when I referred
to fiction was that I hadn't come across a novel about their story
specifically. But I admit my fiction reading is very limited!
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 5:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Annette wrote: "...I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but
I've
> never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to
me.
> ..." Actually, that's exactly the scenario that I present in both my
> books about Richard III in the 21st-century.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of--
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> >
> > Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester
the
> brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be
> ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under
wraps
> for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for.
And
> dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts,
considering
> the ease with which you can get information from a child -
especially if
> you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....
> >
> > I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come
across
> this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check
out
> Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that
> Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her
wing.
> Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could go
> further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: stephenmlark
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> about why I am here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have
> only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.
> >
> > Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did
escape
> or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have
been
> "Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's
identity
> not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had
died
> by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far from
the
> only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more
likely
> than not that nobody did.
> >
> > The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or
> wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between
June
> 1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best
to
> change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all
others.
> >
> > --- In , "Dan"
> dandavidson.tlcp@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello everyone.
> > >
> > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a
> parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the
> tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing,
about
> how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also
would
> hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some
informative
> and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to advertise
my
> book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
> interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in
the
> Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> > >
> > > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a
> story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House of
York
> survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth, century.
> > >
> > > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes
in
> the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester
wasn't
> responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In fact,
I
> would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the
princes.
> Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed' the
> princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
> disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here
would
> agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which quoted
a
> work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very
true.
> > >
> > > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a bad
> king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did
have
> emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve when
his
> son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can
imagine
> he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker,
iirc)
> death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> > >
> > > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history
> whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the
tower,
> was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or
Burgundian
> duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to
> Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
> > >
> > > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will likely
> never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of
Richard
> of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get
people
> thinking.
> > >
> > > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> > >
> > > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is aware,
> the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to
Richard
> of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the
Battle
> of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to
Bosworth,
> because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester
Gave
> Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
> remember the colours of the rainbow.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative
> discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry
if I
> went on for too long about what I'm writing.
> > >
> > > Shalom.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Your suspicions are correct in that I hadn't plan on writing more than
the first book. Actually, when I started, I thought it would be a short
story or an essay, but the deeper I dug and the more I learned, the
bigger the project became. So the "short story" grew some (pun intended
[:D] ) and became first a novel and then a second, and now a third. And
I'm loving every minute of writing it--even the editing. Editing for me
is like troubleshooting--something I've always been pretty good at.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>

--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, wow, it's quite a revelation how much preparation and planning and
pacing of story-line has to go into a novel, and I'm sure Dan is getting
some valuable insights! Of course I always knew that you had to keep
tabs on every character and plot-line, which obviously underlies what
you're describing here, but I can see there are multiple layers of other
considerations as well. Which is why I just know I could never attempt
such a task, I'm too impulsive, I just get excited by something I've
discovered or figured out and I have this need to put it down in words,
and they have to be my words, not some fictitious character!
>
> It is a while since I read "This Time", and I think we all probably
come away from a book remembering the bits that made the biggest
impression. Tell me, did you plan this as a trilogy from the start, or
did the sequels become evident as you went along? I'm already wondering
how you'll be able to present anything about the 'princes' within the
context of Richard's perceptions, or even within the context of the
historical record, but I guess that's why it needs the creative skills
of a novelist to do it successfully.
>
> A while ago I mentioned that I was thinking of writing something about
what might have been their 'after-life', and someone else said she was
looking at doing that too and would she be treading on my toes, and I
said no, not at all. I know it was a female (non-fiction) writer, but
can't remember her name. Anyway, I haven't noticed anything like that
emerging into the light of day, so I've been thinking of revisiting the
idea myself. If so, it may happen that you and I will be working on
similar threads - although you'll obviously get there first!
> All the best, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> When I was writing the first book, I felt that I had to come up with
a
> plausible scenario that fit what is documented (not rumored) and
> Richard's character (as best as I could reckon based on my research
and
> discussions with other Ricardians here and other Ricardian
discussion
> groups.
>
> In "This Time" I wasn't ambiguous about what happened to the
princes,
> but you might have come away with that impression because I had
Richard
> only give highlights of what he did to protect the princes and the
> details that I did supply were not in a single place in the book. My
> reasons for presenting it this was for pacing and to avoid being
> expository. The "visual evidence" was there to place doubt in
Richard's
> mind about whether he'd been completely successful, not that he
didn't
> separate the princes to protect them.
>
> The second book, "Loyalty Binds Me" does go into more detail and in
a
> more concentrated form, but I was able to do this because of a major
> plot arc that made these details something that the reader needed to
> know for Richard's current predicament. I also try to debunk the
myth
> that the Tower bones are those of the princes.
>
> The third book (still a work in progress) will present a theory of
what
> happened to the princes after Richard's defeat.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of--
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Joan, the only book of yours I've read is "This Time",
where my
> recollection is that it seemed deliberately ambiguous about what
> happened to Edward and Richard, to the point where [I'm trying not
to
> give anything away here!] a certain item of visual evidence was not
> recognised. Perhaps my memory is at fault, or maybe your scenario is
> elaborated in the sequel ... I think what I had in mind when I
referred
> to fiction was that I hadn't come across a novel about their story
> specifically. But I admit my fiction reading is very limited!
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: joanszechtman
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 5:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> about why I am here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Annette wrote: "...I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but
> I've
> > never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to
> me.
> > ..." Actually, that's exactly the scenario that I present in both
my
> > books about Richard III in the 21st-century.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of--
> > This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> Book
> > Awards
> > Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> > website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester
> the
> > brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be
> > ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under
> wraps
> > for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for.
> And
> > dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts,
> considering
> > the ease with which you can get information from a child -
> especially if
> > you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....
> > >
> > > I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come
> across
> > this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check
> out
> > Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that
> > Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her
> wing.
> > Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could
go
> > further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: stephenmlark
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> > about why I am here.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have
> > only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.
> > >
> > > Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did
> escape
> > or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have
> been
> > "Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's
> identity
> > not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had
> died
> > by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far
from
> the
> > only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more
> likely
> > than not that nobody did.
> > >
> > > The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or
> > wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between
> June
> > 1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best
> to
> > change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all
> others.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Dan"
> > dandavidson.tlcp@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a
> > parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the
> > tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing,
> about
> > how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also
> would
> > hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some
> informative
> > and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to
advertise
> my
> > book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
> > interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in
> the
> > Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a
> > story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House
of
> York
> > survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth,
century.
> > > >
> > > > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes
> in
> > the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester
> wasn't
> > responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In
fact,
> I
> > would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the
> princes.
> > Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed'
the
> > princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
> > disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here
> would
> > agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which
quoted
> a
> > work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very
> true.
> > > >
> > > > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a
bad
> > king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did
> have
> > emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve
when
> his
> > son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can
> imagine
> > he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker,
> iirc)
> > death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> > > >
> > > > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history
> > whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the
> tower,
> > was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or
> Burgundian
> > duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to
> > Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will
likely
> > never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of
> Richard
> > of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get
> people
> > thinking.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> > > >
> > > > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is
aware,
> > the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to
> Richard
> > of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the
> Battle
> > of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to
> Bosworth,
> > because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester
> Gave
> > Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
> > remember the colours of the rainbow.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative
> > discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry
> if I
> > went on for too long about what I'm writing.
> > > >
> > > > Shalom.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ooh, and I'll keep it under my bonnet, but I've suspicions how you'll continue the "what happened" without Richard having to know. : ) Tee, hee. You'll enjoy the second book, Annette. It's a non-stop roller coaster of a read, with lots of Ricardian, um, things to discover where you don't expect'em.

Judy


________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit about why I am here.


 
Your suspicions are correct in that I hadn't plan on writing more than
the first book. Actually, when I started, I thought it would be a short
story or an essay, but the deeper I dug and the more I learned, the
bigger the project became. So the "short story" grew some (pun intended
[:D] ) and became first a novel and then a second, and now a third. And
I'm loving every minute of writing it--even the editing. Editing for me
is like troubleshooting--something I've always been pretty good at.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>

--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, wow, it's quite a revelation how much preparation and planning and
pacing of story-line has to go into a novel, and I'm sure Dan is getting
some valuable insights! Of course I always knew that you had to keep
tabs on every character and plot-line, which obviously underlies what
you're describing here, but I can see there are multiple layers of other
considerations as well. Which is why I just know I could never attempt
such a task, I'm too impulsive, I just get excited by something I've
discovered or figured out and I have this need to put it down in words,
and they have to be my words, not some fictitious character!
>
> It is a while since I read "This Time", and I think we all probably
come away from a book remembering the bits that made the biggest
impression. Tell me, did you plan this as a trilogy from the start, or
did the sequels become evident as you went along? I'm already wondering
how you'll be able to present anything about the 'princes' within the
context of Richard's perceptions, or even within the context of the
historical record, but I guess that's why it needs the creative skills
of a novelist to do it successfully.
>
> A while ago I mentioned that I was thinking of writing something about
what might have been their 'after-life', and someone else said she was
looking at doing that too and would she be treading on my toes, and I
said no, not at all. I know it was a female (non-fiction) writer, but
can't remember her name. Anyway, I haven't noticed anything like that
emerging into the light of day, so I've been thinking of revisiting the
idea myself. If so, it may happen that you and I will be working on
similar threads - although you'll obviously get there first!
> All the best, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
about why I am here.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> When I was writing the first book, I felt that I had to come up with
a
> plausible scenario that fit what is documented (not rumored) and
> Richard's character (as best as I could reckon based on my research
and
> discussions with other Ricardians here and other Ricardian
discussion
> groups.
>
> In "This Time" I wasn't ambiguous about what happened to the
princes,
> but you might have come away with that impression because I had
Richard
> only give highlights of what he did to protect the princes and the
> details that I did supply were not in a single place in the book. My
> reasons for presenting it this was for pacing and to avoid being
> expository. The "visual evidence" was there to place doubt in
Richard's
> mind about whether he'd been completely successful, not that he
didn't
> separate the princes to protect them.
>
> The second book, "Loyalty Binds Me" does go into more detail and in
a
> more concentrated form, but I was able to do this because of a major
> plot arc that made these details something that the reader needed to
> know for Richard's current predicament. I also try to debunk the
myth
> that the Tower bones are those of the princes.
>
> The third book (still a work in progress) will present a theory of
what
> happened to the princes after Richard's defeat.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of--
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Joan, the only book of yours I've read is "This Time",
where my
> recollection is that it seemed deliberately ambiguous about what
> happened to Edward and Richard, to the point where [I'm trying not
to
> give anything away here!] a certain item of visual evidence was not
> recognised. Perhaps my memory is at fault, or maybe your scenario is
> elaborated in the sequel ... I think what I had in mind when I
referred
> to fiction was that I hadn't come across a novel about their story
> specifically. But I admit my fiction reading is very limited!
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: joanszechtman
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 5:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> about why I am here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Annette wrote: "...I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but
> I've
> > never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to
> me.
> > ..." Actually, that's exactly the scenario that I present in both
my
> > books about Richard III in the 21st-century.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of--
> > This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> Book
> > Awards
> > Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> > website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester
> the
> > brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be
> > ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under
> wraps
> > for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for.
> And
> > dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts,
> considering
> > the ease with which you can get information from a child -
> especially if
> > you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....
> > >
> > > I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come
> across
> > this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check
> out
> > Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that
> > Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her
> wing.
> > Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could
go
> > further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: stephenmlark
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> > about why I am here.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have
> > only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.
> > >
> > > Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did
> escape
> > or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have
> been
> > "Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's
> identity
> > not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had
> died
> > by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far
from
> the
> > only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more
> likely
> > than not that nobody did.
> > >
> > > The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or
> > wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between
> June
> > 1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best
> to
> > change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all
> others.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Dan"
> > dandavidson.tlcp@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a
> > parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the
> > tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing,
> about
> > how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also
> would
> > hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some
> informative
> > and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to
advertise
> my
> > book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
> > interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in
> the
> > Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a
> > story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House
of
> York
> > survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth,
century.
> > > >
> > > > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes
> in
> > the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester
> wasn't
> > responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In
fact,
> I
> > would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the
> princes.
> > Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed'
the
> > princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
> > disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here
> would
> > agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which
quoted
> a
> > work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very
> true.
> > > >
> > > > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a
bad
> > king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did
> have
> > emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve
when
> his
> > son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can
> imagine
> > he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker,
> iirc)
> > death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> > > >
> > > > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history
> > whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the
> tower,
> > was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or
> Burgundian
> > duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to
> > Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will
likely
> > never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of
> Richard
> > of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get
> people
> > thinking.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> > > >
> > > > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is
aware,
> > the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to
> Richard
> > of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the
> Battle
> > of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to
> Bosworth,
> > because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester
> Gave
> > Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
> > remember the colours of the rainbow.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative
> > discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry
> if I
> > went on for too long about what I'm writing.
> > > >
> > > > Shalom.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon K
Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book and
am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time pinpointing
exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal. The
historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly portrayed,
but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the book
is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters as
participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.

Flo




On Oct 23, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:

> Ooh, and I'll keep it under my bonnet, but I've suspicions how
> you'll continue the "what happened" without Richard having to
> know. : ) Tee, hee. You'll enjoy the second book, Annette. It's a
> non-stop roller coaster of a read, with lots of Ricardian, um,
> things to discover where you don't expect'em.
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 2:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> about why I am here.
>
>
> Your suspicions are correct in that I hadn't plan on writing more than
> the first book. Actually, when I started, I thought it would be a
> short
> story or an essay, but the deeper I dug and the more I learned, the
> bigger the project became. So the "short story" grew some (pun
> intended
> [:D] ) and became first a novel and then a second, and now a third.
> And
> I'm loving every minute of writing it--even the editing. Editing for
> me
> is like troubleshooting--something I've always been pretty good at.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of--
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, wow, it's quite a revelation how much preparation and planning
> and
> pacing of story-line has to go into a novel, and I'm sure Dan is
> getting
> some valuable insights! Of course I always knew that you had to keep
> tabs on every character and plot-line, which obviously underlies what
> you're describing here, but I can see there are multiple layers of
> other
> considerations as well. Which is why I just know I could never attempt
> such a task, I'm too impulsive, I just get excited by something I've
> discovered or figured out and I have this need to put it down in
> words,
> and they have to be my words, not some fictitious character!
> >
> > It is a while since I read "This Time", and I think we all probably
> come away from a book remembering the bits that made the biggest
> impression. Tell me, did you plan this as a trilogy from the start, or
> did the sequels become evident as you went along? I'm already
> wondering
> how you'll be able to present anything about the 'princes' within the
> context of Richard's perceptions, or even within the context of the
> historical record, but I guess that's why it needs the creative skills
> of a novelist to do it successfully.
> >
> > A while ago I mentioned that I was thinking of writing something
> about
> what might have been their 'after-life', and someone else said she was
> looking at doing that too and would she be treading on my toes, and I
> said no, not at all. I know it was a female (non-fiction) writer, but
> can't remember her name. Anyway, I haven't noticed anything like that
> emerging into the light of day, so I've been thinking of revisiting
> the
> idea myself. If so, it may happen that you and I will be working on
> similar threads - although you'll obviously get there first!
> > All the best, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: joanszechtman
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> about why I am here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > When I was writing the first book, I felt that I had to come up with
> a
> > plausible scenario that fit what is documented (not rumored) and
> > Richard's character (as best as I could reckon based on my research
> and
> > discussions with other Ricardians here and other Ricardian
> discussion
> > groups.
> >
> > In "This Time" I wasn't ambiguous about what happened to the
> princes,
> > but you might have come away with that impression because I had
> Richard
> > only give highlights of what he did to protect the princes and the
> > details that I did supply were not in a single place in the book. My
> > reasons for presenting it this was for pacing and to avoid being
> > expository. The "visual evidence" was there to place doubt in
> Richard's
> > mind about whether he'd been completely successful, not that he
> didn't
> > separate the princes to protect them.
> >
> > The second book, "Loyalty Binds Me" does go into more detail and in
> a
> > more concentrated form, but I was able to do this because of a major
> > plot arc that made these details something that the reader needed to
> > know for Richard's current predicament. I also try to debunk the
> myth
> > that the Tower bones are those of the princes.
> >
> > The third book (still a work in progress) will present a theory of
> what
> > happened to the princes after Richard's defeat.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > author of--
> > This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> Book
> > Awards
> > Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> > website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, Joan, the only book of yours I've read is "This Time",
> where my
> > recollection is that it seemed deliberately ambiguous about what
> > happened to Edward and Richard, to the point where [I'm trying not
> to
> > give anything away here!] a certain item of visual evidence was not
> > recognised. Perhaps my memory is at fault, or maybe your scenario is
> > elaborated in the sequel ... I think what I had in mind when I
> referred
> > to fiction was that I hadn't come across a novel about their story
> > specifically. But I admit my fiction reading is very limited!
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: joanszechtman
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 5:58 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> > about why I am here.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Annette wrote: "...I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but
> > I've
> > > never come across this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to
> > me.
> > > ..." Actually, that's exactly the scenario that I present in both
> my
> > > books about Richard III in the 21st-century.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > author of--
> > > This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> > Book
> > > Awards
> > > Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> > > website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> > > <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, Stephen and Dan, IMHO the only viable way to sequester
> > the
> > > brothers would be to separate them. As they grew up, it would be
> > > ridiculously difficult to keep a pair of boys of that age under
> > wraps
> > > for a period of years, especially if they were being searched for.
> > And
> > > dangerous even for them to know each other's whereabouts,
> > considering
> > > the ease with which you can get information from a child -
> > especially if
> > > you come cloaked in familiarity from happier years ....
> > > >
> > > > I haven't read a lot of Ricardian fiction but I've never come
> > across
> > > this scenario, despite how obvious it appears to me. If you check
> > out
> > > Ann Wroe's "Perkin", you will perhaps be struck by the fact that
> > > Margaret of Burgundy took a variety of young children under her
> > wing.
> > > Exactly what I would do to throw enquirers off the scent. I could
> go
> > > further, but that's a book I have yet to write.
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: stephenmlark
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Hello everyone - a bit
> > > about why I am here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan, I have read your opening post and the follow-ups and I have
> > > only one criticism. For a novel, your work is just too factual.
> > > >
> > > > Logically, it is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury did
> > escape
> > > or was intentionally "exported" by his uncle (and could well have
> > been
> > > "Perkin"). Logically, as all the claimants took Shrewsbury's
> > identity
> > > not that of Edward of Westminster (who was older), Westminster had
> > died
> > > by the time of the first post-Bosworth rebellion (Simnel). Far
> from
> > the
> > > only question being that of who killed the "princes", it is more
> > likely
> > > than not that nobody did.
> > > >
> > > > The ex-princes would surely have been taken to Burgundy (or
> > > wherever) together so you need to guess when Edward died (between
> > June
> > > 1483 and Easter 1487). If you remain intent on a novel, it is best
> > to
> > > change or assume one fact or law of nature but rigidly apply all
> > others.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Dan"
> > > dandavidson.tlcp@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why I am here: I have been writing a fiction book set in a
> > > parallel universe whereby Richard of Shrewsbury was taken from the
> > > tower. I intend to get people thinking, in the book I am writing,
> > about
> > > how mis-understood Richard of Gloucester really is, plus, I also
> > would
> > > hope to expand my knowledge on the king, and enter into some
> > informative
> > > and interesting discussions. I will not use this forum to
> advertise
> > my
> > > book, but I will mention it once (as is below), but I have a great
> > > interest in the Wars of the Roses, Richard III and the Princes in
> > the
> > > Tower, and hope to discuss such subjects. Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > First Post: Over the last twelve years I have been writing a
> > > story, in my head, set in a parallel universe, whereby the House
> of
> > York
> > > survived well into the twentieth, even into the thirtieth,
> century.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a big interest in the Wars of the Roses and the Princes
> > in
> > > the Tower. If you were to ask me, I think Richard of Gloucester
> > wasn't
> > > responsible, at least directly, for the princes' `deaths'. In
> fact,
> > I
> > > would go so far as to blame Henry Tudor for the `deaths' of the
> > princes.
> > > Fact of the matter is, no-one can prove either way who `killed'
> the
> > > princes, or even if they were murdered. As history says they
> > > disappeared. No-one can prove either way. I'm sure everyone here
> > would
> > > agree. Also, I read a quote from a book on the princes, which
> quoted
> > a
> > > work of fiction: `History will tell lies, as usual'. This is very
> > true.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't view Richard of Gloucester (Richard III) as being a
> bad
> > > king, in fact, from what I have read, he ruled rather well. He did
> > have
> > > emotions (and was definitely not a hunchback), as he did grieve
> when
> > his
> > > son, Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, died in 1484. I can
> > imagine
> > > he also grieved over his wife's (the daughter of the Kingmaker,
> > iirc)
> > > death, which I think occurred in 1485.
> > > > >
> > > > > The story I am now starting to write up occurs in a history
> > > whereby Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the princes in the
> > tower,
> > > was taken from the tower to the court of the French king, or
> > Burgundian
> > > duke (I've yet to decide, it would most likely be Burgundy, due to
> > > Margaret of York being the duchess at the time).
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, the story I have been writing all this time will
> likely
> > > never be published, but it paints a very sympathetic picture of
> > Richard
> > > of Gloucester. While the story is fiction, I think it could get
> > people
> > > thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, enough about my book, that's not why I'm here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Back to a more relevant topic, I'm sure everyone here is
> aware,
> > > the mnemonic `Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain' referred to
> > Richard
> > > of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, fighting at the
> > Battle
> > > of Wakefield, which I think was in 1460. It does not refer to
> > Bosworth,
> > > because then the mnemonic would have to be `Richard Of Gloucester
> > Gave
> > > Battle In Vain', which although true, doesn't really help people
> > > remember the colours of the rainbow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for reading, and I hope to join many informative
> > > discussions on this often greatly misunderstood monarch. And sorry
> > if I
> > > went on for too long about what I'm writing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shalom.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

> It is a while since I read "This Time", and I think we all probably come away from a book remembering the bits that made the biggest impression. Tell me, did you plan this as a trilogy from the start, or did the sequels become evident as you went along? I'm already wondering how you'll be able to present anything about the 'princes' within the context of Richard's perceptions, or even within the context of the historical record, but I guess that's why it needs the creative skills of a novelist to do it successfully.


It would be interesting if Richard, in our time, turned to the history books to find out what had become of his two nephews, only to discover that History doesn't know, either.

Kay

--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon K
> Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book and
> am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time pinpointing
> exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
> Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal. The
> historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly portrayed,
> but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
> care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
> usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the book
> is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters as
> participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.
>
> Flo



I think that Penman has gone to the well too often. It seems that authors' first books are full of life and vibrant characters and complex plots, because the authors really want to write that story. Then they write a few more from what you might call left-over research, and by that time they have a following and fans, and editors who want more of the same, just as the authors are running out of material, inspiration, or the fire to write.

Salem's Lot was, I think, Stephen King's first published novel. It contains enough characters and plot for half a dozen books. His later novels contain about half a plot each.

Kay

Yes absolutely - many run out of steam after only the first book - I could
name many brilliant first novels then sadly followed by a stream of
inadequate and disappointing 2nd s and 3rd s. Something I must keep in mind
myself.

Barbara



-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
Sent: Monday, 24 October 2011 10:18 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Another Richard- Lionheart







--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Florence Dove
<mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon K
> Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book and
> am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time pinpointing
> exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
> Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal. The
> historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly portrayed,
> but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
> care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
> usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the book
> is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters as
> participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.
>
> Flo

I think that Penman has gone to the well too often. It seems that authors'
first books are full of life and vibrant characters and complex plots,
because the authors really want to write that story. Then they write a few
more from what you might call left-over research, and by that time they have
a following and fans, and editors who want more of the same, just as the
authors are running out of material, inspiration, or the fire to write.

Salem's Lot was, I think, Stephen King's first published novel. It contains
enough characters and plot for half a dozen books. His later novels contain
about half a plot each.

Kay

"It would be interesting if Richard, in our time, turned to the history
books to find out what had become of his two nephews, only to discover
that History doesn't know, either."

He did. But I have my ways. [:D] He will learn.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
wrote:
>
> > It is a while since I read "This Time", and I think we all probably
come away from a book remembering the bits that made the biggest
impression. Tell me, did you plan this as a trilogy from the start, or
did the sequels become evident as you went along? I'm already wondering
how you'll be able to present anything about the 'princes' within the
context of Richard's perceptions, or even within the context of the
historical record, but I guess that's why it needs the creative skills
of a novelist to do it successfully.
>
>
> It would be interesting if Richard, in our time, turned to the history
books to find out what had become of his two nephews, only to discover
that History doesn't know, either.
>
> Kay
>

I've just started reading Lionheart and I'm enjoying it so far despite
the heavy emphasis on narrative. I'm finding the book has a rhythm of
its own, so for the time being, I'm going with it.

As far as Penmans writing goes, I find hers to be consistently solid. I
have yet to be tempted to throw any of her books against the wall
despite the occasional speed bump. But considering the depth and breath
of her work, I think there are not too many authors who come close to
her skill, either as a researcher or story teller.

Not so with Diana Gabaldon. I loved the first three books of her
Outlander series, but my enjoyment diminished to the point where I won't
read any more of her books.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@...>
wrote:
>
> Yes absolutely - many run out of steam after only the first book - I
could
> name many brilliant first novels then sadly followed by a stream of
> inadequate and disappointing 2nd s and 3rd s. Something I must keep in
mind
> myself.
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
oregon_katy
> Sent: Monday, 24 October 2011 10:18 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Another Richard- Lionheart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Florence Dove
> mdove9@ wrote:
> >
> > Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon K
> > Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book
and
> > am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time pinpointing
> > exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
> > Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal.
The
> > historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly
portrayed,
> > but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
> > care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
> > usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the book
> > is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters as
> > participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.
> >
> > Flo
>
> I think that Penman has gone to the well too often. It seems that
authors'
> first books are full of life and vibrant characters and complex plots,
> because the authors really want to write that story. Then they write a
few
> more from what you might call left-over research, and by that time
they have
> a following and fans, and editors who want more of the same, just as
the
> authors are running out of material, inspiration, or the fire to
write.
>
> Salem's Lot was, I think, Stephen King's first published novel. It
contains
> enough characters and plot for half a dozen books. His later novels
contain
> about half a plot each.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A short piece by Anthony Sher in today's Guardian (G2, page 19) about playing Richard III. Cheers! Nina

I've been waiting for this one as I loved all of her other novels.  From her
blog I had the impression that she was really keen to write this book so it's
quite interesting if it hasn't turned out as well as the others.  I'll have to
try it and see.




________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 October, 2011 0:18:15
Subject: Re: Another Richard- Lionheart

 


--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon K
> Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book and
> am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time pinpointing
> exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
> Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal. The
> historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly portrayed,
> but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
> care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
> usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the book
> is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters as
> participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.
>
> Flo

I think that Penman has gone to the well too often. It seems that authors' first
books are full of life and vibrant characters and complex plots, because the
authors really want to write that story. Then they write a few more from what
you might call left-over research, and by that time they have a following and
fans, and editors who want more of the same, just as the authors are running out
of material, inspiration, or the fire to write.

Salem's Lot was, I think, Stephen King's first published novel. It contains
enough characters and plot for half a dozen books. His later novels contain
about half a plot each.

Kay

I believe that I read "Lionheart" is the first of 2 books planned by
Penman about him.

Flo




On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, liz williams wrote:

> I've been waiting for this one as I loved all of her other novels.
> From her
> blog I had the impression that she was really keen to write this
> book so it's
> quite interesting if it hasn't turned out as well as the others.
> I'll have to
> try it and see.
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 24 October, 2011 0:18:15
> Subject: Re: Another Richard- Lionheart
>
>
>
> --- In , Florence Dove
> <mdove9@...> wrote:
> >
> > Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon K
> > Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book
> and
> > am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time pinpointing
> > exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
> > Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal.
> The
> > historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly
> portrayed,
> > but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
> > care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
> > usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the book
> > is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters as
> > participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.
> >
> > Flo
>
> I think that Penman has gone to the well too often. It seems that
> authors' first
> books are full of life and vibrant characters and complex plots,
> because the
> authors really want to write that story. Then they write a few more
> from what
> you might call left-over research, and by that time they have a
> following and
> fans, and editors who want more of the same, just as the authors are
> running out
> of material, inspiration, or the fire to write.
>
> Salem's Lot was, I think, Stephen King's first published novel. It
> contains
> enough characters and plot for half a dozen books. His later novels
> contain
> about half a plot each.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>

Flo wrote: "I believe that I read "Lionheart" is the first of 2 books
planned by Penman about him."

You're correct.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , Florence Dove
<mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> I believe that I read "Lionheart" is the first of 2 books planned by
> Penman about him.
>
> Flo
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, liz williams wrote:
>
> > I've been waiting for this one as I loved all of her other novels.
> > From her
> > blog I had the impression that she was really keen to write this
> > book so it's
> > quite interesting if it hasn't turned out as well as the others.
> > I'll have to
> > try it and see.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 24 October, 2011 0:18:15
> > Subject: Re: Another Richard- Lionheart
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Florence Dove
> > mdove9@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon
K
> > > Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book
> > and
> > > am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time
pinpointing
> > > exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
> > > Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal.
> > The
> > > historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly
> > portrayed,
> > > but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
> > > care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
> > > usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the
book
> > > is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters
as
> > > participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.
> > >
> > > Flo
> >
> > I think that Penman has gone to the well too often. It seems that
> > authors' first
> > books are full of life and vibrant characters and complex plots,
> > because the
> > authors really want to write that story. Then they write a few more
> > from what
> > you might call left-over research, and by that time they have a
> > following and
> > fans, and editors who want more of the same, just as the authors are
> > running out
> > of material, inspiration, or the fire to write.
> >
> > Salem's Lot was, I think, Stephen King's first published novel. It
> > contains
> > enough characters and plot for half a dozen books. His later novels
> > contain
> > about half a plot each.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I finished it, but I confess that I skimmed large sections of the
book. I think it did improve toward the end. In looking back on the
book and by comparison ( I am rereading "Here Be Dragons") two things
stand out. One, her other books had significantly more dialogue and
far less intrusive narrative. The characters told the story and moved
it along, creating at the same time distinctive personalities for
themselves that I cared about. Two, the words that the characters
spoke in "Lionheart" when they did say anything didn't come across to
me as authentic language for the period. The sentence structure and
choice of words seemed somehow too modern for the 15th century. Other
thoughts anyone? Penman's other books have been so very excellent for
the most part that perhaps my expectations were too excessive for this
one.

Flo

On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, liz williams wrote:

> I've been waiting for this one as I loved all of her other novels.
> From her
> blog I had the impression that she was really keen to write this
> book so it's
> quite interesting if it hasn't turned out as well as the others.
> I'll have to
> try it and see.
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 24 October, 2011 0:18:15
> Subject: Re: Another Richard- Lionheart
>
>
>
> --- In , Florence Dove
> <mdove9@...> wrote:
> >
> > Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon K
> > Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book
> and
> > am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time pinpointing
> > exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
> > Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal.
> The
> > historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly
> portrayed,
> > but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
> > care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
> > usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the book
> > is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters as
> > participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.
> >
> > Flo
>
> I think that Penman has gone to the well too often. It seems that
> authors' first
> books are full of life and vibrant characters and complex plots,
> because the
> authors really want to write that story. Then they write a few more
> from what
> you might call left-over research, and by that time they have a
> following and
> fans, and editors who want more of the same, just as the authors are
> running out
> of material, inspiration, or the fire to write.
>
> Salem's Lot was, I think, Stephen King's first published novel. It
> contains
> enough characters and plot for half a dozen books. His later novels
> contain
> about half a plot each.
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>

I'm about half way through "Lionheart" and I have to say that I'm
thoroughly enjoying the book and not skimming over long passages either.
Once I got used to the style of providing the historical background
through various characters' internal monolog--which I was able to
accomplish in the first chapter--I find the book an easy read in that
regard, for Penman doesn't provide more information than what the reader
needs at any point in the book. I do agree that the dialog is more
modern sounding that we are used to when reading historical novels, but
my guess is this was Penman's way of making it more immediate to the
reader while avoiding the use of present tense.

Joan
---
author of--
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , Florence Dove
<mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> I finished it, but I confess that I skimmed large sections of the
> book. I think it did improve toward the end. In looking back on the
> book and by comparison ( I am rereading "Here Be Dragons") two things
> stand out. One, her other books had significantly more dialogue and
> far less intrusive narrative. The characters told the story and moved
> it along, creating at the same time distinctive personalities for
> themselves that I cared about. Two, the words that the characters
> spoke in "Lionheart" when they did say anything didn't come across to
> me as authentic language for the period. The sentence structure and
> choice of words seemed somehow too modern for the 15th century. Other
> thoughts anyone? Penman's other books have been so very excellent for
> the most part that perhaps my expectations were too excessive for this
> one.
>
> Flo
>
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, liz williams wrote:
>
> > I've been waiting for this one as I loved all of her other novels.
> > From her
> > blog I had the impression that she was really keen to write this
> > book so it's
> > quite interesting if it hasn't turned out as well as the others.
> > I'll have to
> > try it and see.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 24 October, 2011 0:18:15
> > Subject: Re: Another Richard- Lionheart
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Florence Dove
> > mdove9@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Just curious to know if anyone else has read or is reading Sharon
K
> > > Penman's newest novel "Lionheart"? I'm about 60% through the book
> > and
> > > am vaguely disappointed although I'm having a hard time
pinpointing
> > > exactly why. I loved her other books (the Welsh trilogy, Sunne in
> > > Splendor, etc), but for some reason this one just doesn't appeal.
> > The
> > > historical scope is there, the battle scenes are vibrantly
> > portrayed,
> > > but somehow the characters don't come alive in a way that makes me
> > > care about them. Perhaps its the lack of dialogue (which Penman
> > > usually manages superbly), since much of the first half of the
book
> > > is told by the author as an observer as opposed to the characters
as
> > > participants. I'd be interested in other opinions.
> > >
> > > Flo
> >
> > I think that Penman has gone to the well too often. It seems that
> > authors' first
> > books are full of life and vibrant characters and complex plots,
> > because the
> > authors really want to write that story. Then they write a few more
> > from what
> > you might call left-over research, and by that time they have a
> > following and
> > fans, and editors who want more of the same, just as the authors are
> > running out
> > of material, inspiration, or the fire to write.
> >
> > Salem's Lot was, I think, Stephen King's first published novel. It
> > contains
> > enough characters and plot for half a dozen books. His later novels
> > contain
> > about half a plot each.
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>