Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Anne Boleyn / Rivers

Let me rephrase that. Anne Boleyn was outspoken, arrogant, and was subject to
tantrums. Henry expected her to behave like Catherine of Aragon had-to be
quiet, meek and submissive.
Please bear with me on this. I really have to increase my pool of knowledge
when it comes to the Woodvilles. They were ambitious, avaricious, and they
posed the threat of presiding over Edward V and limiting RIchard's influence.
What was he supposed to do, ignore them?

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> Let me rephrase that. Anne Boleyn was outspoken, arrogant, and was
subject to> tantrums.

Sounds like my sister-in-law!

Henry expected her to behave like Catherine of Aragon
had-to be> quiet, meek and submissive.

In fact, Catherine didn't play ball with Henry. She refused to accept
the divorce & the bastardization of her daughter Mary. Can you blame
her? She also directed the war against Scotland while Henry was away
in France.

> Please bear with me on this. I really have to increase my pool of
knowledge> when it comes to the Woodvilles. They were ambitious,
avaricious and they> posed the threat of presiding over Edward V and
limiting RIchard's influence.> What was he supposed to do, ignore
them?
>
> -Victoria

That's certainly the impression we get of Eizabeth Woodville & Dorset,
but where's the evidence that Rivers was planning a coup against
Richard in April, 1483. He'd been asked to convey the King to London
by the Council, including Hastings ( Richard's apparent buddy at that
time) & that's all he was doing. He didn't make a dash to London to
avoid Richard, he rode back to Northampton and, according to Thomas
More, they passed a convivial evening. Next morning he's arrested and
in June beheaded. He wrote a fatalistic poem about how dizzy he felt
about the turn of events. On a personal level, he may've been
entirely innocent of any wrong doing.

At 09:28 PM 1/10/03 -0500, hockeygirl1016@... wrote:
>Let me rephrase that. Anne Boleyn was outspoken, arrogant, and was subject to
>tantrums. Henry expected her to behave like Catherine of Aragon had-to be
>quiet, meek and submissive.

She wasn't though, from before the marriage when there was big fuss about
her dowry until her final illness, still arguing for her rights. She just
was a very different personality than Anne (who was supposed to have been
influenced by her time at the French court vs Catherine coming from the
much more formal Spanish one), with different priorities and tactics. Jane
Seymour makes a better example of quiet, etc with it probably absolutely no
co-incidence that that was who Henry turned to after a couple of wives with
strong -if different- personalities.

Kim

--- In , Kim Malo <kimmalo@m...>
wrote:
> At 09:28 PM 1/10/03 -0500, hockeygirl1016@a... wrote:
> >Let me rephrase that. Anne Boleyn was outspoken, arrogant, and was
subject to
> >tantrums. Henry expected her to behave like Catherine of Aragon
had-to be
> >quiet, meek and submissive.
>
> She wasn't though, from before the marriage when there was big fuss
about
> her dowry until her final illness, still arguing for her rights. She
just
> was a very different personality than Anne (who was supposed to have
been
> influenced by her time at the French court vs Catherine coming from
the
> much more formal Spanish one), with different priorities and
tactics. Jane
> Seymour makes a better example of quiet, etc with it probably
absolutely no
> co-incidence that that was who Henry turned to after a couple of
wives with
> strong -if different- personalities.
>
> Kim

I agree with Kim on this. Catherine, daughter of Ferdinand &
Isabella, who were co-rulers of Spain, was no wimp. She was strong in
her Faith & defended her position as Queen quite strongly in Court
against Henry. Her refusal to submit to Henry brought about the
Reformation in England.

Anne Boleyn also was innovative as she was the first Queen to show an
interest in Protestantism and probably like all Queens before her
treated her King not as though she was a slave, but as some one who
could be influenced or controlled. She was unfortunate in that
Catholic England at that time wasn't ready for Protestantism & she,
who had failed to produce the desired male heir, was seen as a whore
who had supplanted the rightful Queen.

The way her trial was rigged was disgusting almost beyond belief!

ok so maybe Catherine was a bad example. I meant that personality-wise, Anne
Boleyn was Catherine's opposite. While Catherine turned in the other
direction during Henry's philanderings, Anne went nuts. Both were innocent
victims of Henry's ruthlessness. The Woodvilles couldn't have been completely
innocent. I still believe that there some plots going around about them
gaining control of Edward V from Richard, and Richard did the right thing by
putting a stop to this.

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> ok so maybe Catherine was a bad example. I meant that
personality-wise, Anne > Boleyn was Catherine's opposite. While
Catherine turned in the other > direction during Henry's
philanderings, Anne went nuts. Both were innocent
> victims of Henry's ruthlessness.

I think both were victims of Henry's paranoia. Henry felt a male
heir was necessary to avoid conflict & was worried about a reaction
to his opposition to Catholicism. No wonder Jane Seymour was meek &
mild after the way Anne was treated. Henry tried to attract other
women later & one said that she would've married Henry if she had two
heads!


The Woodvilles couldn't have been completely> innocent. I still
believe that there some plots going around about them> gaining control
of Edward V from Richard, and Richard did the right thing by
> putting a stop to this.
>
> -Victoria

I think you're right there. Dorset was already manouvering to
dislodge Richard from the Protectorate & Hastings tipped Richard off,
who came down on the Woodvilles, Edward V & even Hastings himself like
an avalanche, like the military man he was! He knew that power
struggle was inevitable same as it ever was.

At 04:22 AM 1/11/03 -0000, willison2001 <willison2001@...> wrote:

>
>I think you're right there. Dorset was already manouvering to
>dislodge Richard from the Protectorate & Hastings tipped Richard off,
>who came down on the Woodvilles, Edward V & even Hastings himself like
>an avalanche, like the military man he was! He knew that power
>struggle was inevitable same as it ever was.
>

Many years ago, the historian Charles T. Wood suggested that Richard's coup
at Stony Stratford may have been intended as a sort of "warning shot across
the bow" to encourage the other faction to negotiate. He hoped by
neutralizing part of the opposition and taking hostages, in a sense, but
doing no other harm, to keep his options open while negotiating from a
position of strength. Instead, the other faction (Wood continued) reacted
more as though it were an assault than a warning, anad things escalated
from there. Wood also suggested that in June Richard found himself in a
situation "from which he lacked the political skills to extricate himself
without violence." He commented in conclusion that he saw the entire
situation as a story more of "all sorts of limited people out of their
depth" than of one of deliberate and thought-out villainy. [personal
communication from Charles T. Wood, reprinted in an article in the
Ricardian Register, spring 1992]

A. J. Pollard, in a footnote in his _Richard III and the Princes in the
Tower_, referred to this as "the cock-up theory of history," and ribbed
Wood about it in his contribution to the 1998 conference celebrating Wood's
work. You can hear Pollard at his most impish at our website, but to get
the lecture he delivered following this RealAudio introduction, you'll have
to get the book -- I think he used it in his recent collection of essays
about Richard III.

http://www.r3.org/wood/papers/pollard.html

(the page contains one of my first Photoshop collages, and I'm still pretty
pleased with it although I've grown more skilled over the past five years)



--
Laura Blanchard
lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
Collections Libraries
lblanchard@... (all other mail)
Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 04:22 AM 1/11/03 -0000, willison2001 <willison2001@y...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Many years ago, the historian Charles T. Wood suggested that
Richard's coup> at Stony Stratford may have been intended as a sort of
"warning shot across> the bow" to encourage the other faction to
negotiate. He hoped by> neutralizing part of the opposition and taking
hostages, in a sense, but> doing no other harm, to keep his options
open while negotiating from a> position of strength. Instead, the
other faction (Wood continued) reacted> more as though it were an
assault than a warning, anad things escalated> from there.

I think a turning point was what More reported. Edward V (only 12)
'burst into tears and could not be consoled' over the removal of his
Uncle Rivers & half-brother Grey. It's probable that Edward loved
these two, as they'd acted like surrogate Father & a real brother.

Richard was on a very sticky wicket having upset his monarch. If
Edward V was anything like Edward IV, Richard could only survive by
becoming King. He chose not to be a pawn! Logical for someone used
to military campaigns & prepared to accept innocent casualties.

Wood also suggested that in June Richard found himself
in a> situation "from which he lacked the political skills to
extricate himself> without violence." He commented in conclusion that
he saw the entire> situation as a story more of "all sorts of limited
people out of their> depth" than of one of deliberate and thought-out
villainy. [personal> communication from Charles T. Wood, reprinted in
an article in the> Ricardian Register, spring 1992]

"all sorts of limited people out of their> depth" is a normal
situation for everyone! Violence was what power struggles depended
upon. The idea of anyone during the Lancastrian, Yorkist & Tudor
periods sitting down at a table to debate simply wasn't the norm, no
more likely than getting George W. Bush to chat to Osama Bin Laden or
Jews and Hamas to see eye to eye.

Relatively, one person's freedom fighter is another person's
terrorist. And try to be objective as we may, we can't sit on the
fence in every case and not distinguish between right & wrong.

The murder of Henry VI - his hair was still matted with blood when his
coffin was opened - wasn't in any way morally correct. He was a
prisoner and clearly suffered from schizophrenia, which had made him
withdraw into a religious fantasy world and, yet, Edward IV sanctioned
his murder (1471) and Richard is reported by a contemporay Chronicle
as the one sent by Edward to oversee Henry's death. The Yorkist
brothers believed in expediency & didn't scruple about morality!
After all, how had their father been treated?>
>

willison2001 <willison2001@...>11/01/2003
15:29willison2001@...

> I think a turning point was what More reported. Edward V (only 12)
> 'burst into tears and could not be consoled' over the removal of his
> Uncle Rivers & half-brother Grey. It's probable that Edward loved
> these two, as they'd acted like surrogate Father & a real brother.
and was so "upset" that at dinner with his uncles Richard and Henry he
doddled signatures and mottoes on piece of paper. And 12 was quite old for
the times, especially for a prince.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> willison2001 <willison2001@y...>11/01/2003
> 15:29willison2001@y...
>
> > I think a turning point was what More reported. Edward V (only
12)
> > 'burst into tears and could not be consoled' over the removal of
his
> > Uncle Rivers & half-brother Grey. It's probable that Edward loved
> > these two, as they'd acted like surrogate Father & a real brother.
> and was so "upset" that at dinner with his uncles Richard and Henry
he
> doddled signatures and mottoes on piece of paper. And 12 was quite
old for
> the times, especially for a prince.
> Paul

If someone is under duress, they would do far more than doodle a few
signatures.

--- In , "willison2001
<willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > willison2001 <willison2001@y...>11/01/2003
> > 15:29willison2001@y...
> >
> > > I think a turning point was what More reported. Edward V (only
> 12)
> > > 'burst into tears and could not be consoled' over the removal
of
> his
> > > Uncle Rivers & half-brother Grey. It's probable that Edward
loved
> > > these two, as they'd acted like surrogate Father & a real
brother.
> > and was so "upset" that at dinner with his uncles Richard and
Henry
> he
> > doddled signatures and mottoes on piece of paper. And 12 was
quite
> old for
> > the times, especially for a prince.
> > Paul
>
> If someone is under duress, they would do far more than doodle a
few
> signatures.

Well, we all know that More's word should be taken verbatim as he was
what--3 years old at the time--and was a protoge of John Morton,
Bishop of Ely, Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal of England.

--- In , "natusm
<nvenice2@a...>" <nvenice2@a...> wrote:
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > willison2001 <willison2001@y...>11/01/2003
> > > 15:29willison2001@y...
> > >
> > > > I think a turning point was what More reported. Edward V
(only
> > 12)
> > > > 'burst into tears and could not be consoled' over the removal
> of
> > his
> > > > Uncle Rivers & half-brother Grey. It's probable that Edward
> loved
> > > > these two, as they'd acted like surrogate Father & a real
> brother.
> > > and was so "upset" that at dinner with his uncles Richard and
> Henry
> > he
> > > doddled signatures and mottoes on piece of paper. And 12 was
> quite
> > old for
> > > the times, especially for a prince.
> > > Paul
> >
> > If someone is under duress, they would do far more than doodle a
> few
> > signatures.
>
> Well, we all know that More's word should be taken verbatim as he
was
> what--3 years old at the time--and was a protoge of John Morton,
> Bishop of Ely, Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal of England.

I'ts not likely that Edward V, a Plantagenet/Woodville would be over
the Moon about the arrest of his Uncle Rivers who had virtually
brought him up at Ludlow or the arrest of his own half-brother. With
his Mother & brother & sisters in Sanctuary he must've been a tadge
suspicious about Richard & Buckingham's motives. Well might he,
because Richard was to accuse him of bastardy later!

I'm not sure why Thomas More should invent the story of Edward V
bursting into tears over the situation. It sounds likely, could've
been related to him by those who remembered and didn't especially
blacken Richard's name. It could be viewed as a petulant, I want my
own way, outburst by the young King.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:47 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: Anne Boleyn / Rivers


It is clear that Hastings was involved in a plan to grab the
government from Richard, and it is correct to think they would
additionally have imprisoned or more likely killed Richard.

Richard, with agreement from those who agreed to put him in power,
thought that Woodville control of the government necessarily met
civil war because the aristocracy and the rest of the country just
weren't going to have the Woodvilles' greed and complete lack of
skill at governing.

I don't agree that Anthony Woodville was a wonderful and skilled
Renaissance whatever; the evidence is he was jsut another sicko in
the York court; maybe one of the more articulate of them.

Dora


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Excuse me, I know I've come into this particular discussion rather late, but in what sources do you base your claim of Hasting's involvement in a plot with the Woodvilles?

Evan

Richard did not hold the any valid power when he arrested Rivers, Grey and
Vaughan. The only person holding any form of power in April and Early May
was the young King Edward V. Richard wasn't declared Protector until after
his arrival in London with the young King. In fact Rivers was acting in
accord with the wishes of the Council in bringing the young King to London.

There is no surviving contemporary evidence that Richard was named Protector
by Edward IV at all. The only stuff that does suggest such a thing survives
from after Richard's assumption of the protectorate. Irrespective of that
fact the simple truth is that initially the council quite clearly had no
intention of naming a protector at all. In fact there is a reasonable
supposition that a Protector wasn't needed given the age of the young king,
the short duration of any minority and the relative stability of the country
at Edward IV's death.

Richard's arrest of Rivers was without legitimate foundation - although its
certain with his removal Richard was removing a major stumbling block over
any wish on Richard's behalf to assume a greater political role than anyone
on the council appears to have intended he have.

----- Original Message -----
From: <tiggernut24@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Anne Boleyn / Rivers


> I think it's a matter of what you mean by a plot. This was a full
> scale political conflict! To whatever degree either party could
> claim to legitimately hold the government, the other party was guilty
> of treason. Richard's position, which I find valid from what I have
> read so far, was that he validly held power and needed to do so to
> keep the peace, and they were traitors.
>
> Dora
>
> --- In , "willison2001
> <willison2001@y...>" <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> > wrote:
> > > At least with Anne BOleyn, the only thing she was guilty of was
> > being the > antithesis of what a queen was supposed to be- quiet,
> meek
> > and submissive.
> >
> > Yup...she certainly was that: feisty & raunchy, a would be mistress
> > who wouldn't say 'Yes!' She did a Elizabeth Woodville, in fact!
> How
> > many Queens were 'quiet, meek and submissive' is debateable.
> > Certainly, not Isabella, the 'she-wolf' of France who,
> understandably,
> > had her gay husband: Edward 2, attached to a red hot spit or poker
> in
> > a place where it hurt, not Margaret of Anjou, who led the
> Lancastrian
> > armies, Elizabeth Woodville...? I think not...not with the way she
> > courted power for herself & her family. Anne Boleyn's strong &
> > intelligent personality may've left its mark on her illustrious
> > daughter, possibly the greatest English monarch of all: Elizabeth I!
> >
> > > RIvers, Grey and the like were actually plotting against Richard.
> > >
> > > -Victoria
> >
> > I know that Richard claimed this bunch was plotting against him,
> but
> > the evidence is painfully thin. I thought Hastings had agreed that
> > Rivers with a reduced escort bring Edward V, who everyone
> (including
> > Richard) at that time accepted as King, to London & that's what
> Rivers
> > was doing? He politely visits Richard at Northampton & next
> day 'Wham
> > Bam' he's imprisoned & later executed.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Dora wrote:

> It is clear that Hastings was involved in a plan to grab the
> government from Richard, and it is correct to think they would >
additionally have imprisoned or more likely killed Richard.
>
> Richard, with agreement from those who agreed to put him in power,
> thought that Woodville control of the government necessarily met
> civil war because the aristocracy and the rest of the country just
> weren't going to have the Woodvilles' greed and complete lack of
> skill at governing.
>

Dora you really need to do some research on this issue because quite frankly
there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that the english aristocracy
were that bothered either way about the Queen's family in 1483. Equally
they don't seem to have been particularly bothered when Richard III took the
throne nor when Henry VII did - firstly they were probably at their weakest
in terms of numbers and secondly many of them simply seemed to be fed up
with choosing sides.

As to the Wydeville's complete lack of skill in governing - well actually
Anthony Earl Rivers had effectively in the name of the Prince of Wales run
Wales and the Duchy (of Cornwall) holdings for almost a decade and the
evidence suggests that it was run quite aswell as Richard ran the north.

There are a number of reasons why that grated with one individual -
Buckingham whose traditional power base was in Wales (and where it could
have been assumed he would have exercised the largest control) equally
Buckingham and Hastings were fairly uneasy new friends given that Hastings
key area of influence during Edward IV's reign was the Midlands again an
area that Buckingham could have expected to wield considerable influence.


> I don't agree that Anthony Woodville was a wonderful and skilled
> Renaissance whatever; the evidence is he was jsut another sicko in
> the York court; maybe one of the more articulate of them.
>
> Dora
>
>
> I!
> >
> > > RIvers, Grey and the like were actually plotting against Richard.
> > >
> > > -Victoria
> >
> > I know that Richard claimed this bunch was plotting against him,
> but
> > the evidence is painfully thin. I thought Hastings had agreed that
> > Rivers with a reduced escort bring Edward V, who everyone
> (including
> > Richard) at that time accepted as King, to London & that's what
> Rivers
> > was doing? He politely visits Richard at Northampton & next
> day 'Wham
> > Bam' he's imprisoned & later executed.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>