Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 14:15:12
Hi Everyone,
Thank you for approving my membership.
I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
Thank you for approving my membership.
I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 14:17:28
Sorry, I meant 'Hammond' not 'Hancock' in the third paragraph...
--- In , "elena_nuk" <elena_nuk@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
--- In , "elena_nuk" <elena_nuk@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 15:43:12
Hi, Elena!
Gifted with a Kindle, I've reserved it for novels and things only available as Ebooks; everything else (and even most novels) I'll continue to obtain in print.
I remember when computers first got big; everyone said we'd soon be "paperless..." That was back in the '80s. There are devices you can get to ease your reading of small type. My Dad, who had Macular Degeneration and loved to read 'til the end, had some such thing, available through one of the organizations for the blind...sorry, I don't recall more about it, or who provided it free....
I'll let others, better qualified, address your quest for books, except for suggesting Annette Carson's Richard III: The Maligned King as a start. Of course, if Kindle consistently fails to provide illustrations...?
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: elena_nuk <elena_nuk@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:15 AM
Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Hi Everyone,
Thank you for approving my membership.
I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
Gifted with a Kindle, I've reserved it for novels and things only available as Ebooks; everything else (and even most novels) I'll continue to obtain in print.
I remember when computers first got big; everyone said we'd soon be "paperless..." That was back in the '80s. There are devices you can get to ease your reading of small type. My Dad, who had Macular Degeneration and loved to read 'til the end, had some such thing, available through one of the organizations for the blind...sorry, I don't recall more about it, or who provided it free....
I'll let others, better qualified, address your quest for books, except for suggesting Annette Carson's Richard III: The Maligned King as a start. Of course, if Kindle consistently fails to provide illustrations...?
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: elena_nuk <elena_nuk@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:15 AM
Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Hi Everyone,
Thank you for approving my membership.
I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 15:47:12
Hi Elana, first WELCOME!
Although Hammond has written about Richard III, etc., I thought Hancock
was the author you have been referring to. I really enjoyed his book
too. Regardless, I have found Hancock to be reasonably accessible, maybe
he could help you with the illustrations and tables if you emailed him.
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "elena_nuk"
<elena_nuk@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I meant 'Hammond' not 'Hancock' in the third paragraph...
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" elena_nuk@
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Thank you for approving my membership.
> >
> > I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders
in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was
disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were
included in the Kindle version.
> >
> > I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is
non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual
documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a
quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!)
and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and
its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing'
princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of
assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few
books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the
Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
> >
> > Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more
accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size
to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the
Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and
informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family
tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this
period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite
difficult to follow.
> >
> > I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible -
at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of
Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested,
via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred
over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
> >
> > Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if
this question has been asked before.
> >
>
Although Hammond has written about Richard III, etc., I thought Hancock
was the author you have been referring to. I really enjoyed his book
too. Regardless, I have found Hancock to be reasonably accessible, maybe
he could help you with the illustrations and tables if you emailed him.
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "elena_nuk"
<elena_nuk@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I meant 'Hammond' not 'Hancock' in the third paragraph...
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" elena_nuk@
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Thank you for approving my membership.
> >
> > I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders
in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was
disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were
included in the Kindle version.
> >
> > I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is
non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual
documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a
quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!)
and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and
its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing'
princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of
assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few
books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the
Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
> >
> > Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more
accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size
to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the
Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and
informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family
tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this
period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite
difficult to follow.
> >
> > I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible -
at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of
Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested,
via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred
over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
> >
> > Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if
this question has been asked before.
> >
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 15:48:51
Hi Judy and thank you for replying,
Yes, I believe many visually impaired readers use screen readers and other computer programmes designed for VI users and, certainly, if I were to read things online, then I could access many things which I couldn't in book format. I'm not keen on audio books, they have their place and can be marvellous but, personally, I really miss reading actual books and the Kindle (limited as it seems to be!) does of a kind of 'book reading' experience if you know what I mean?
I think one of the problems is that publishers only transfer to Kindle their most popular titles (shame I don't like Jilly Cooper as I suspect they are ALL on Kindle!) and so I just wondered if anyone knew of anything offhand which might do the job.
I will have a look now for Annette Carson's book, thank you so much.
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Elena!
>
> Gifted with a Kindle, I've reserved it for novels and things only available as Ebooks; everything else (and even most novels) I'll continue to obtain in print.
>
> I remember when computers first got big; everyone said we'd soon be "paperless..." That was back in the '80s. There are devices you can get to ease your reading of small type. My Dad, who had Macular Degeneration and loved to read 'til the end, had some such thing, available through one of the organizations for the blind...sorry, I don't recall more about it, or who provided it free....
>
> I'll let others, better qualified, address your quest for books, except for suggesting Annette Carson's Richard III: The Maligned King as a start. Of course, if Kindle consistently fails to provide illustrations...?
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: elena_nuk <elena_nuk@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:15 AM
> Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
>
>
> Â
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yes, I believe many visually impaired readers use screen readers and other computer programmes designed for VI users and, certainly, if I were to read things online, then I could access many things which I couldn't in book format. I'm not keen on audio books, they have their place and can be marvellous but, personally, I really miss reading actual books and the Kindle (limited as it seems to be!) does of a kind of 'book reading' experience if you know what I mean?
I think one of the problems is that publishers only transfer to Kindle their most popular titles (shame I don't like Jilly Cooper as I suspect they are ALL on Kindle!) and so I just wondered if anyone knew of anything offhand which might do the job.
I will have a look now for Annette Carson's book, thank you so much.
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Elena!
>
> Gifted with a Kindle, I've reserved it for novels and things only available as Ebooks; everything else (and even most novels) I'll continue to obtain in print.
>
> I remember when computers first got big; everyone said we'd soon be "paperless..." That was back in the '80s. There are devices you can get to ease your reading of small type. My Dad, who had Macular Degeneration and loved to read 'til the end, had some such thing, available through one of the organizations for the blind...sorry, I don't recall more about it, or who provided it free....
>
> I'll let others, better qualified, address your quest for books, except for suggesting Annette Carson's Richard III: The Maligned King as a start. Of course, if Kindle consistently fails to provide illustrations...?
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: elena_nuk <elena_nuk@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:15 AM
> Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
>
>
> Â
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 15:51:19
Hi Joan, thanks for replying.
Yes, Hancock was the first author I referred to, in relation to the downloaded Kindle version of his book. I later meant to refer to Hammond when looking for another book! Sorry, I am capable of confusing pretty much anything!
I will look around to see if I can find a way of contacting him because, if I could find the illustrations, even if I had to display them on the computer, alongside reading the non-illustrated Kindle version, that would seriously help me out. I'm frustrated to be honest as I really like his style and thought it very well presented and researched.
Thank you, I shall see if I can find him!
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Elana, first WELCOME!
>
> Although Hammond has written about Richard III, etc., I thought Hancock
> was the author you have been referring to. I really enjoyed his book
> too. Regardless, I have found Hancock to be reasonably accessible, maybe
> he could help you with the illustrations and tables if you emailed him.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
Yes, Hancock was the first author I referred to, in relation to the downloaded Kindle version of his book. I later meant to refer to Hammond when looking for another book! Sorry, I am capable of confusing pretty much anything!
I will look around to see if I can find a way of contacting him because, if I could find the illustrations, even if I had to display them on the computer, alongside reading the non-illustrated Kindle version, that would seriously help me out. I'm frustrated to be honest as I really like his style and thought it very well presented and researched.
Thank you, I shall see if I can find him!
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Elana, first WELCOME!
>
> Although Hammond has written about Richard III, etc., I thought Hancock
> was the author you have been referring to. I really enjoyed his book
> too. Regardless, I have found Hancock to be reasonably accessible, maybe
> he could help you with the illustrations and tables if you emailed him.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 16:09:15
Just a thought. The book I'm reading on Kindle has illustrations which are accessed by going to the page List of Illustrations, and moving the cursor on to the number of the illustration. A hand appears, and if you click, you get the picture.
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 16:19:56
Hi, and thank you for replying.
Yes, some do and some don't. That's the trouble with Kindle versions, it's very hard to tell and, even with the samples one can get, it very often isn't easy to work out if they're included or not! I've just written a review for Amazon warning other potential readers that, if they are able to access the print book, they should do that rather than order the Kindle one. Some publishers are very good and bother to include everything, others don't as they seem to see it as unnecessary. The appendices and documents included therein, are all there for the Hancock book in Kindle but not the illustrations unfortunately. I've just recently downloaded one about the Pastons and that DOES include all the illustrations thankfully.
Similarly, I've just looked the Annette Carson book up on Amazon and there is no kindle version and so, yet again, I've clicked the "I would like this on Kindle" link which is apparently sent to the publishers but, as with all the others I've clicked, I suspect I will not hear back.
However, someone has just very kindly provided me with an email address for Peter Hancock and so I have now emailed him to draw his attention to the problem and am hoping that perhaps he can either persuade his publisher to include them (which is possible) or perhaps somehow let me have them some other way so I could view them alongside the book.
--- In , "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
>
> Just a thought. The book I'm reading on Kindle has illustrations which are accessed by going to the page List of Illustrations, and moving the cursor on to the number of the illustration. A hand appears, and if you click, you get the picture.
>
Yes, some do and some don't. That's the trouble with Kindle versions, it's very hard to tell and, even with the samples one can get, it very often isn't easy to work out if they're included or not! I've just written a review for Amazon warning other potential readers that, if they are able to access the print book, they should do that rather than order the Kindle one. Some publishers are very good and bother to include everything, others don't as they seem to see it as unnecessary. The appendices and documents included therein, are all there for the Hancock book in Kindle but not the illustrations unfortunately. I've just recently downloaded one about the Pastons and that DOES include all the illustrations thankfully.
Similarly, I've just looked the Annette Carson book up on Amazon and there is no kindle version and so, yet again, I've clicked the "I would like this on Kindle" link which is apparently sent to the publishers but, as with all the others I've clicked, I suspect I will not hear back.
However, someone has just very kindly provided me with an email address for Peter Hancock and so I have now emailed him to draw his attention to the problem and am hoping that perhaps he can either persuade his publisher to include them (which is possible) or perhaps somehow let me have them some other way so I could view them alongside the book.
--- In , "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
>
> Just a thought. The book I'm reading on Kindle has illustrations which are accessed by going to the page List of Illustrations, and moving the cursor on to the number of the illustration. A hand appears, and if you click, you get the picture.
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 16:19:57
Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times, and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle version - yikes!
There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to uncover.
Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start. Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is, unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because writing is my profession.
I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't endorse.
Best of luck, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Hi Everyone,
Thank you for approving my membership.
I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to uncover.
Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start. Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is, unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because writing is my profession.
I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't endorse.
Best of luck, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Hi Everyone,
Thank you for approving my membership.
I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 16:36:22
Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is appreciated.
Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too. The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig. 18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others' opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that a word?!)
Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats, depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other readers who may read it in a print format.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times, and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle version - yikes!
>
> There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to uncover.
>
> Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start. Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is, unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because writing is my profession.
>
> I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
>
> Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't endorse.
> Best of luck, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too. The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig. 18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others' opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that a word?!)
Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats, depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other readers who may read it in a print format.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times, and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle version - yikes!
>
> There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to uncover.
>
> Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start. Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is, unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because writing is my profession.
>
> I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
>
> Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't endorse.
> Best of luck, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 20:03:56
It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
"I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination" (I rather like that sentiment!)
and
"Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest".
I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle, I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even aspire to!
Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as I'm reading it.
Thank you.
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is appreciated.
>
> Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
>
> If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too. The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig. 18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
>
> I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others' opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that a word?!)
>
> Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats, depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other readers who may read it in a print format.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times, and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle version - yikes!
> >
> > There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to uncover.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start. Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is, unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because writing is my profession.
> >
> > I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
> >
> > Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't endorse.
> > Best of luck, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> > Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Thank you for approving my membership.
> >
> > I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
> >
> > I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
> >
> > Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
> >
> > I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
> >
> > Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
"I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination" (I rather like that sentiment!)
and
"Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest".
I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle, I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even aspire to!
Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as I'm reading it.
Thank you.
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is appreciated.
>
> Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
>
> If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too. The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig. 18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
>
> I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others' opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that a word?!)
>
> Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats, depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other readers who may read it in a print format.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times, and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle version - yikes!
> >
> > There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to uncover.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start. Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is, unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because writing is my profession.
> >
> > I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
> >
> > Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't endorse.
> > Best of luck, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> > Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Thank you for approving my membership.
> >
> > I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
> >
> > I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
> >
> > Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
> >
> > I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
> >
> > Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-11 20:07:31
Hi, Elena!
I share your frustrations in re: hearing back from Amazon. I had asked them if the OED was available for Kindle; they said: Oh, yes! But they're wrong; Kindle only has the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, a very different beastie; their people seem technologically savvy but woefully ill-informed about books.... I had thought Annette's book was indeed now available, but I do not blame her for not wanting to give up the print option. It would really skew the market, if everybody we most enjoyed reading were to suddenly only be available to Kindle (and bear in mind, Kindle "books" can't be read on Nook and vice-versa; Title Wars could result, I fear). All shades of Beta Max and the early days of video...and then there were those of us who bought Laser Disks and their players.
Had I not received my Kindle as a gift, I'm not sure I'd have bought one yet....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: elena_nuk <maia@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is appreciated.
Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too. The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig. 18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others' opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that a word?!)
Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats, depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other readers who may read it in a print format.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times, and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND
which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle version - yikes!
>
> There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to uncover.
>
> Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start. Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is, unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because
writing is my profession.
>
> I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
>
> Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't endorse.
> Best of luck, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I share your frustrations in re: hearing back from Amazon. I had asked them if the OED was available for Kindle; they said: Oh, yes! But they're wrong; Kindle only has the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, a very different beastie; their people seem technologically savvy but woefully ill-informed about books.... I had thought Annette's book was indeed now available, but I do not blame her for not wanting to give up the print option. It would really skew the market, if everybody we most enjoyed reading were to suddenly only be available to Kindle (and bear in mind, Kindle "books" can't be read on Nook and vice-versa; Title Wars could result, I fear). All shades of Beta Max and the early days of video...and then there were those of us who bought Laser Disks and their players.
Had I not received my Kindle as a gift, I'm not sure I'd have bought one yet....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: elena_nuk <maia@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is appreciated.
Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too. The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig. 18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others' opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that a word?!)
Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats, depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other readers who may read it in a print format.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times, and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND
which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle version - yikes!
>
> There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to uncover.
>
> Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start. Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is, unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because
writing is my profession.
>
> I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
>
> Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't endorse.
> Best of luck, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-11 20:23:51
Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!! But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy, Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward IV?
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
>
> So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
>
> "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination" (I rather like that sentiment!)
>
> and
>
> "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest".
>
> I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle, I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even aspire to!
>
> Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as I'm reading it.
>
> Thank you.
>
Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!! But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy, Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward IV?
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
>
> So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
>
> "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination" (I rather like that sentiment!)
>
> and
>
> "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest".
>
> I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle, I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even aspire to!
>
> Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as I'm reading it.
>
> Thank you.
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-11 22:51:57
Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
>
> Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!! But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
>
> Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy, Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
>
> Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward IV?
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@> wrote:
> >
> > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> >
> > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> >
> > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination" (I rather like that sentiment!)
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> >
> > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle, I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even aspire to!
> >
> > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as I'm reading it.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
>
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
>
> Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!! But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
>
> Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy, Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
>
> Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward IV?
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@> wrote:
> >
> > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> >
> > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> >
> > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination" (I rather like that sentiment!)
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> >
> > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle, I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even aspire to!
> >
> > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as I'm reading it.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
>
A brief rant on Kindle--was: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-12 02:05:21
Amazon had tried, and continues to try, to dominiate the ebook market.
When they produced their ereader, Kindle, instead of using ePub, the
public standard and already existing format, Amazon created a
proprietary format--mobi--for their ebooks. By creating this format and
forcing Amazon ebooks to adhere to this standard, those who own other
ereaders can't directly read ebooks only available at Amazon. Nor can
you read ePub format directly on a Kindle. Of course, there is some free
software that will convert mobi to epub and vise versa, but that
requires some extra steps. (Nook uses ePub.) It is my opinion that
Amazon implemented the mobi format for their ereader to lock in Kindle
owners to buy ebooks exclusively at their site.
As it happens, Google Books support two formats, ePub and PDF. Kindles
can read PDF files, but I don't know if the text quality of PDF on
Kindles matches the text quality of the ePub format on Nook or other
ereaders.
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Elena!
>
> I share your frustrations in re: hearing back from Amazon. I had asked
them if the OED was available for Kindle; they said: Oh, yes! But
they're wrong; Kindle only has the Oxford Dictionary of the English
Language, a very different beastie; their people seem technologically
savvy but woefully ill-informed about books.... I had thought Annette's
book was indeed now available, but I do not blame her for not wanting to
give up the print option. It would really skew the market, if everybody
we most enjoyed reading were to suddenly only be available to Kindle
(and bear in mind, Kindle "books" can't be read on Nook and vice-versa;
Title Wars could result, I fear). All shades of Beta Max and the early
days of video...and then there were those of us who bought Laser Disks
and their players.
>
> Had I not received my Kindle as a gift, I'm not sure I'd have bought
one yet....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: elena_nuk maia@...
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard
for Kindle?
>
>
> Â
> Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the
others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is
appreciated.
>
> Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully
and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another
post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the
link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take
any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no
idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which
seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
>
> If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't
particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD
include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too.
The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig.
18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and
he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
>
> I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer
reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on
Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others'
opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so
disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that
a word?!)
>
> Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the
large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame
really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs
properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech
facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats,
depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It
also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very
useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other
readers who may read it in a print format.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
wrote:
> >
> > Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally
discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I
must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of
books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III
Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any
particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in
terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and
seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of
1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on
the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront
about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs
the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a
book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times,
and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND
> which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However
.... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle
version - yikes!
> >
> > There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any
illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the
other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying
whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does
miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was
written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to
uncover.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start.
Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm
sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the
sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is,
unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted
to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The
Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have
had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to
include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but
they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they
wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to
happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but
possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the
Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because
> writing is my profession.
> >
> > I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on
investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more
helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do
provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair
amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of
1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about
having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of
view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
> >
> > Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list
of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible
items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison
Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't
endorse.
> > Best of luck, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> > Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard
for Kindle?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Thank you for approving my membership.
> >
> > I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the
murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but
was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were
included in the Kindle version.
> >
> > I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which
is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on
actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and,
from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to
find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the
throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the
'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's
clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find
quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe,
runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
> >
> > Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more
accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size
to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the
Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and
informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family
tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this
period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite
difficult to follow.
> >
> > I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible
- at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of
Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via
Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over
to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
> >
> > Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies
if this question has been asked before.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
When they produced their ereader, Kindle, instead of using ePub, the
public standard and already existing format, Amazon created a
proprietary format--mobi--for their ebooks. By creating this format and
forcing Amazon ebooks to adhere to this standard, those who own other
ereaders can't directly read ebooks only available at Amazon. Nor can
you read ePub format directly on a Kindle. Of course, there is some free
software that will convert mobi to epub and vise versa, but that
requires some extra steps. (Nook uses ePub.) It is my opinion that
Amazon implemented the mobi format for their ereader to lock in Kindle
owners to buy ebooks exclusively at their site.
As it happens, Google Books support two formats, ePub and PDF. Kindles
can read PDF files, but I don't know if the text quality of PDF on
Kindles matches the text quality of the ePub format on Nook or other
ereaders.
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Elena!
>
> I share your frustrations in re: hearing back from Amazon. I had asked
them if the OED was available for Kindle; they said: Oh, yes! But
they're wrong; Kindle only has the Oxford Dictionary of the English
Language, a very different beastie; their people seem technologically
savvy but woefully ill-informed about books.... I had thought Annette's
book was indeed now available, but I do not blame her for not wanting to
give up the print option. It would really skew the market, if everybody
we most enjoyed reading were to suddenly only be available to Kindle
(and bear in mind, Kindle "books" can't be read on Nook and vice-versa;
Title Wars could result, I fear). All shades of Beta Max and the early
days of video...and then there were those of us who bought Laser Disks
and their players.
>
> Had I not received my Kindle as a gift, I'm not sure I'd have bought
one yet....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: elena_nuk maia@...
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard
for Kindle?
>
>
> Â
> Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the
others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is
appreciated.
>
> Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully
and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another
post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the
link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take
any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no
idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which
seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
>
> If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't
particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD
include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too.
The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig.
18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and
he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
>
> I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer
reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on
Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others'
opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so
disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that
a word?!)
>
> Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the
large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame
really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs
properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech
facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats,
depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It
also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very
useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other
readers who may read it in a print format.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
wrote:
> >
> > Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally
discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I
must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of
books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III
Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any
particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in
terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and
seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of
1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on
the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront
about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs
the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a
book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times,
and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND
> which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However
.... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle
version - yikes!
> >
> > There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any
illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the
other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying
whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does
miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was
written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to
uncover.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start.
Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm
sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the
sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is,
unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted
to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The
Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have
had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to
include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but
they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they
wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to
happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but
possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the
Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because
> writing is my profession.
> >
> > I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on
investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more
helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do
provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair
amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of
1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about
having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of
view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
> >
> > Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list
of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible
items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison
Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't
endorse.
> > Best of luck, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> > Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard
for Kindle?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Thank you for approving my membership.
> >
> > I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the
murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but
was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were
included in the Kindle version.
> >
> > I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which
is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on
actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and,
from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to
find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the
throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the
'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's
clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find
quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe,
runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
> >
> > Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more
accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size
to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the
Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and
informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family
tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this
period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite
difficult to follow.
> >
> > I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible
- at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of
Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via
Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over
to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
> >
> > Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies
if this question has been asked before.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 02:12:35
Check out the Online library <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html>
at the American Branch website for reprints from Croyland, Walpole,
Fabyan, etc.
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...>
wrote:
>
> Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking
about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
>
> Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I
can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!!
But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and
that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
>
> Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III
in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It
seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly
awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored
by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely,
degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly.
The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions,
rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to
choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I
don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion
either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about
Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all
sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in
favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless
reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
>
> Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of
Edward IV?
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" maia@
wrote:
> >
> > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more
well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson
are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> >
> > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any
of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back
to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard
III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does
raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> >
> > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation,
but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination"
(I rather like that sentiment!)
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what
was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> >
> > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than
I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by
many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but
since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle,
I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of
bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to
speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory
chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it
will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later
texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected
in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to
start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are
partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even
aspire to!
> >
> > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as
I'm reading it.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
>
at the American Branch website for reprints from Croyland, Walpole,
Fabyan, etc.
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...>
wrote:
>
> Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking
about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
>
> Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I
can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!!
But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and
that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
>
> Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III
in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It
seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly
awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored
by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely,
degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly.
The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions,
rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to
choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I
don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion
either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about
Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all
sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in
favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless
reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
>
> Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of
Edward IV?
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" maia@
wrote:
> >
> > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more
well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson
are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> >
> > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any
of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back
to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard
III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does
raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> >
> > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation,
but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination"
(I rather like that sentiment!)
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what
was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> >
> > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than
I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by
many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but
since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle,
I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of
bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to
speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory
chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it
will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later
texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected
in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to
start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are
partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even
aspire to!
> >
> > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as
I'm reading it.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
>
Re: A brief rant on Kindle--was: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kind
2011-12-12 02:13:25
I skipped the Kindle completely and went to an Asus Transformer tablet,
with an attachable keyboard which is also a docking station/extra battery.
I downloaded the PC versions of both Nook and Kindle; and when I'm in Wifi
territory, I can also read from my Questia collection (which includes the
Rozmital chronicles).
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Amazon had tried, and continues to try, to dominiate the ebook market.
> When they produced their ereader, Kindle, instead of using ePub, the
> public standard and already existing format, Amazon created a
> proprietary format--mobi--for their ebooks. By creating this format and
> forcing Amazon ebooks to adhere to this standard, those who own other
> ereaders can't directly read ebooks only available at Amazon. Nor can
> you read ePub format directly on a Kindle. Of course, there is some free
> software that will convert mobi to epub and vise versa, but that
> requires some extra steps. (Nook uses ePub.) It is my opinion that
> Amazon implemented the mobi format for their ereader to lock in Kindle
> owners to buy ebooks exclusively at their site.
>
> As it happens, Google Books support two formats, ePub and PDF. Kindles
> can read PDF files, but I don't know if the text quality of PDF on
> Kindles matches the text quality of the ePub format on Nook or other
> ereaders.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Elena!
> >
> > I share your frustrations in re: hearing back from Amazon. I had asked
> them if the OED was available for Kindle; they said: Oh, yes! But
> they're wrong; Kindle only has the Oxford Dictionary of the English
> Language, a very different beastie; their people seem technologically
> savvy but woefully ill-informed about books.... I had thought Annette's
> book was indeed now available, but I do not blame her for not wanting to
> give up the print option. It would really skew the market, if everybody
> we most enjoyed reading were to suddenly only be available to Kindle
> (and bear in mind, Kindle "books" can't be read on Nook and vice-versa;
> Title Wars could result, I fear). All shades of Beta Max and the early
> days of video...and then there were those of us who bought Laser Disks
> and their players.
> >
> > Had I not received my Kindle as a gift, I'm not sure I'd have bought
> one yet....
> >
> > Judy
> > ý
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: elena_nuk maia@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard
> for Kindle?
> >
> >
> > ý
> > Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the
> others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is
> appreciated.
> >
> > Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully
> and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another
> post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the
> link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take
> any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no
> idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which
> seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
> >
> > If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't
> particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD
> include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too.
> The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig.
> 18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and
> he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
> >
> > I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer
> reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on
> Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others'
> opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so
> disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that
> a word?!)
> >
> > Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the
> large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame
> really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs
> properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech
> facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats,
> depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It
> also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very
> useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other
> readers who may read it in a print format.
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally
> discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I
> must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of
> books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III
> Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any
> particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in
> terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and
> seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of
> 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on
> the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront
> about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs
> the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a
> book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times,
> and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND
> > which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However
> .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle
> version - yikes!
> > >
> > > There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any
> illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the
> other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying
> whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does
> miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was
> written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to
> uncover.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start.
> Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm
> sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the
> sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is,
> unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted
> to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The
> Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have
> had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to
> include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but
> they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they
> wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to
> happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but
> possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the
> Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because
> > writing is my profession.
> > >
> > > I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on
> investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more
> helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do
> provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair
> amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of
> 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about
> having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of
> view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
> > >
> > > Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list
> of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible
> items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison
> Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't
> endorse.
> > > Best of luck, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> > > Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard
> for Kindle?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > >
> > > Thank you for approving my membership.
> > >
> > > I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the
> murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but
> was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were
> included in the Kindle version.
> > >
> > > I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which
> is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on
> actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and,
> from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to
> find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the
> throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the
> 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's
> clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find
> quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe,
> runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
> > >
> > > Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more
> accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size
> to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the
> Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and
> informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family
> tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this
> period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite
> difficult to follow.
> > >
> > > I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible
> - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of
> Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via
> Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over
> to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies
> if this question has been asked before.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
with an attachable keyboard which is also a docking station/extra battery.
I downloaded the PC versions of both Nook and Kindle; and when I'm in Wifi
territory, I can also read from my Questia collection (which includes the
Rozmital chronicles).
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:05 PM, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Amazon had tried, and continues to try, to dominiate the ebook market.
> When they produced their ereader, Kindle, instead of using ePub, the
> public standard and already existing format, Amazon created a
> proprietary format--mobi--for their ebooks. By creating this format and
> forcing Amazon ebooks to adhere to this standard, those who own other
> ereaders can't directly read ebooks only available at Amazon. Nor can
> you read ePub format directly on a Kindle. Of course, there is some free
> software that will convert mobi to epub and vise versa, but that
> requires some extra steps. (Nook uses ePub.) It is my opinion that
> Amazon implemented the mobi format for their ereader to lock in Kindle
> owners to buy ebooks exclusively at their site.
>
> As it happens, Google Books support two formats, ePub and PDF. Kindles
> can read PDF files, but I don't know if the text quality of PDF on
> Kindles matches the text quality of the ePub format on Nook or other
> ereaders.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Elena!
> >
> > I share your frustrations in re: hearing back from Amazon. I had asked
> them if the OED was available for Kindle; they said: Oh, yes! But
> they're wrong; Kindle only has the Oxford Dictionary of the English
> Language, a very different beastie; their people seem technologically
> savvy but woefully ill-informed about books.... I had thought Annette's
> book was indeed now available, but I do not blame her for not wanting to
> give up the print option. It would really skew the market, if everybody
> we most enjoyed reading were to suddenly only be available to Kindle
> (and bear in mind, Kindle "books" can't be read on Nook and vice-versa;
> Title Wars could result, I fear). All shades of Beta Max and the early
> days of video...and then there were those of us who bought Laser Disks
> and their players.
> >
> > Had I not received my Kindle as a gift, I'm not sure I'd have bought
> one yet....
> >
> > Judy
> > ý
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: elena_nuk maia@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard
> for Kindle?
> >
> >
> > ý
> > Hi Annette and thanks so much for this and thank you also to the
> others who have replied to helpfully to me about this, it really is
> appreciated.
> >
> > Wow, a load of great ideas which I'm going to read over more carefully
> and then come back here to post about. I've just mentioned in another
> post reply that your book isn't available on Kindle (I've clicked the
> link but it seems to be up to the publishers whether or not they take
> any action, I suspect that authors, such as yourself, probably have no
> idea that they don't include them until someone points it out which
> seems very wrong really as they are essentially spoiling your books!)
> >
> > If there are no illustrations, that's absolutely fine with me. I don't
> particularly want to find one with them, just that if the book SHOULD
> include them, then it would be helpful if the Kindle version did too.
> The problem with the Hancock book is that he repeatedly says "as in fig.
> 18 and 19" etc., and, since I have no idea what they may represent (and
> he often doesn't indicate that!) then it all becomes a bit frustrating.
> >
> > I'm going to read over your post properly and then write a longer
> reply a little later as I see you've suggested I look for titles on
> Amazon and perhaps post them here in advance to see what others'
> opinions on them are. That's a great idea, thank you. I've been so
> disappointed though to find so few of them have been 'kindled' (is that
> a word?!)
> >
> > Thank you so much for replying. I will find something eventually, the
> large print idea may be the best option but it's just such a shame
> really as the kindle would work fine if the publishers did their jobs
> properly! < moan, moan ! > The kindle also has a text-to-speech
> facility which means I can 'read' the book in a variety of formats,
> depending on which proves easiest, all in one place so to speak. It
> also numbers the pages in line with the print version which is very
> useful if, like me, you enjoy a good discussion of the book with other
> readers who may read it in a print format.
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" email@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Elena - Hello, and welcome from me too! We do occasionally
> discuss the pros and cons of various books here in this forum (and I
> must own up to having written one of them!), but the availability of
> books exclusively in eBook form is a difficult one. The Richard III
> Society, which is run by an Executive Committee rather than any
> particular office-holder, has only just had its feet held to the fire in
> terms of whether it will endorse any particular book about Richard, and
> seems to have come down in favour of Paul Murray Kendall's biography of
> 1955. It's a safe choice, because the book is beautifully written and on
> the whole sympathetic to Richard's point of view. Kendall is upfront
> about what he's taken as his sources, and furthermore, he also informs
> the reader where he has filled in gaps with surmise. So if you want a
> book that gives you a rounded depiction of Richard, his life and times,
> and which is securely grounded in the available sources, AND
> > which is a pleasurable read, you can't go wrong with Kendall. However
> .... I've just looked on Amazon and cannot see any reference to a Kindle
> version - yikes!
> > >
> > > There is a drawback with Kendall, which is that there aren't any
> illustrations or genealogical tables (or not in my copy, anyway). On the
> other hand, I'm sure we on this forum could help you by supplying
> whatever you needed. Also, being over 50 years old, Kendall's book does
> miss out an awful lot of stuff that has come into focus since it was
> written, which of course is what the Richard III Society exists to
> uncover.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, I would recommend Kendall as the best place to start.
> Have you looked into whether there's an eBook or large print format? I'm
> sure the publishers couldn't go wrong producing an eBook of it, as the
> sales are healthy enough not to be adversely affected - which is,
> unfortunately, a consideration for many authors. My publishers wanted
> to produce an eBook version of the book I wrote, "Richard III: The
> Maligned King", which Judy kindly recommended, but not only would I have
> had to pay yet more fees to license the images I'd have wanted to
> include (yes, authors pay for these, and I would have been willing), but
> they also revealed that when it came out in a digital version they
> wouldn't expect to produce any more in print. I wasn't ready for this to
> happen, so I said no. Peter Hancock is with the same publishers, but
> possibly he isn't so concerned about preserving his "Murder in the
> Tower" in print form. I suppose it matters more to me because
> > writing is my profession.
> > >
> > > I must admit, though, that if you are just starting out on
> investigating Richard III, I don't suppose my book would be much more
> helpful than Peter's, neither being intended as a biography. I do
> provide a lot of background, but I also assume the reader has a fair
> amount of knowledge already, and moreover I deal only with the events of
> 1483-5, and that's not what you asked for. Plus, I make no bones about
> having written it as an attempt to see things from Richard's point of
> view, which could well be described as biased in his favour.
> > >
> > > Here's an idea. Why don't you get back to the forum giving us a list
> of all the eBook titles about Richard that you think are responsible
> items (I'm sure we all heaved a sigh of relief when you excluded Alison
> Weir!), and we could give our opinions as to which we would and wouldn't
> endorse.
> > > Best of luck, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:15 PM
> > > Subject: Broad Narrative on Richard
> for Kindle?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > >
> > > Thank you for approving my membership.
> > >
> > > I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the
> murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but
> was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were
> included in the Kindle version.
> > >
> > > I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which
> is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on
> actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and,
> from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to
> find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the
> throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the
> 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's
> clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find
> quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe,
> runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
> > >
> > > Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more
> accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size
> to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the
> Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and
> informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family
> tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this
> period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite
> difficult to follow.
> > >
> > > I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible
> - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of
> Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via
> Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over
> to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies
> if this question has been asked before.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 07:37:37
Ooh, thank you for this link Joan, I'll definitely look there. You're absolutely right about Amazon and they remind me of the way M$ seem to control so much of the computer content nowadays, as you say, they tie you in (along with the authors/publishers) and there's something quite unpleasant about it when you stop to think it over!
I also think tablets (as suggested by Maria, might well have worked better. I did a fair bit of research before buying the Kindle and finally opted for it mostly for ease of downloading and uniformity - meaning that if I stuck to Amazon books, much as I dislike the monopoly they have created, I wouldn't need to pfaff about with software and additional programmes but it may well have been a bit of a false premise as I am finding that many of the things I wish to read aren't available on there. Amazon themselves seem to suggested Project Gutenberg and a couple of other sites (including an archive site based in the US) and I'm not yet sure how the compatibility works but assume there must be some, since Amazon themselves link one to their offerings.
I'm finding Walpole fascinating for many, possibly suprious, reasons! He writes in such an incensed manner at times and has an endearing way of writing "I don't wish to be rude about the writings/skills of X, Y, Z as a historian, but..." and then writing something horribly rude about them! He's also quite interesting on points of grammatical interpretation of some of the original texts which, although one could argue are slightly spurious arguments, they do seem add to the overall picture of 'myth-interpretation' that has happened over the years in relation to Richard III.
What I'm finding fascinating, and frankly it leaves me increasingly incredulous, is that it would seem even a cursory reading of the actual historical events (coupled with provable and multi-sourced dates/calendars) of the period, is how ANYONE could believe Richard to be guilty of even one tenth of the things which are commonly ascribed to him. Walpole sets out a list of 'charges' against him and then, one by one, attempts to refute them or, in not refute, then at least contextualize them. I am finding that some of his assumptions are at times a little difficult to source - he does have a habit of using phrases akin to "it's commonly accepted that" without indicating WHO commonly accepts it or why and he also seems to infer a slightly strange logic at times but, on the whole, he seems at least to be trying to present a reasonably straight approach.
I will admit that I'm already totally hooked into the entire period of history as it seems to exemplify my own belief that archives, historical texts, newspapers of the time (or similar) are only ever as good as the historians recording them.
I also think Shakespeare has a lot to answer for in the case of Richard III! I suppose we should be grateful that Charles Dickens chose not to write on the subject too!
It would be a fascinating project to get one of the "48 hours Mystery" or "Rough Justice" type programmes which we are so regularly subjected to on the television nowadays, to do an investigation into Richard III and the events which seem to have surrounded him for generations. A forensic investigation using modern-day analysts, might cheapen the whole subject somewhat, but would nevertheless be an interesting thing to attempt possibly.
Thanks so much for the links and also to Maria for the information about tablets.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Check out the Online library <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html>
> at the American Branch website for reprints from Croyland, Walpole,
> Fabyan, etc.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking
> about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
> >
> > Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I
> can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!!
> But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and
> that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
> >
> > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III
> in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It
> seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly
> awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored
> by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely,
> degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly.
> The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions,
> rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to
> choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I
> don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion
> either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about
> Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all
> sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in
> favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
> Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless
> reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of
> Edward IV?
> >
> > --- In , "elena_nuk" maia@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more
> well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson
> are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> > >
> > > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any
> of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back
> to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard
> III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does
> raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> > >
> > > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation,
> but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination"
> (I rather like that sentiment!)
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what
> was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> > >
> > > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than
> I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by
> many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but
> since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle,
> I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of
> bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to
> speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory
> chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it
> will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later
> texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected
> in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to
> start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are
> partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even
> aspire to!
> > >
> > > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as
> I'm reading it.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
I also think tablets (as suggested by Maria, might well have worked better. I did a fair bit of research before buying the Kindle and finally opted for it mostly for ease of downloading and uniformity - meaning that if I stuck to Amazon books, much as I dislike the monopoly they have created, I wouldn't need to pfaff about with software and additional programmes but it may well have been a bit of a false premise as I am finding that many of the things I wish to read aren't available on there. Amazon themselves seem to suggested Project Gutenberg and a couple of other sites (including an archive site based in the US) and I'm not yet sure how the compatibility works but assume there must be some, since Amazon themselves link one to their offerings.
I'm finding Walpole fascinating for many, possibly suprious, reasons! He writes in such an incensed manner at times and has an endearing way of writing "I don't wish to be rude about the writings/skills of X, Y, Z as a historian, but..." and then writing something horribly rude about them! He's also quite interesting on points of grammatical interpretation of some of the original texts which, although one could argue are slightly spurious arguments, they do seem add to the overall picture of 'myth-interpretation' that has happened over the years in relation to Richard III.
What I'm finding fascinating, and frankly it leaves me increasingly incredulous, is that it would seem even a cursory reading of the actual historical events (coupled with provable and multi-sourced dates/calendars) of the period, is how ANYONE could believe Richard to be guilty of even one tenth of the things which are commonly ascribed to him. Walpole sets out a list of 'charges' against him and then, one by one, attempts to refute them or, in not refute, then at least contextualize them. I am finding that some of his assumptions are at times a little difficult to source - he does have a habit of using phrases akin to "it's commonly accepted that" without indicating WHO commonly accepts it or why and he also seems to infer a slightly strange logic at times but, on the whole, he seems at least to be trying to present a reasonably straight approach.
I will admit that I'm already totally hooked into the entire period of history as it seems to exemplify my own belief that archives, historical texts, newspapers of the time (or similar) are only ever as good as the historians recording them.
I also think Shakespeare has a lot to answer for in the case of Richard III! I suppose we should be grateful that Charles Dickens chose not to write on the subject too!
It would be a fascinating project to get one of the "48 hours Mystery" or "Rough Justice" type programmes which we are so regularly subjected to on the television nowadays, to do an investigation into Richard III and the events which seem to have surrounded him for generations. A forensic investigation using modern-day analysts, might cheapen the whole subject somewhat, but would nevertheless be an interesting thing to attempt possibly.
Thanks so much for the links and also to Maria for the information about tablets.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Check out the Online library <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html>
> at the American Branch website for reprints from Croyland, Walpole,
> Fabyan, etc.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking
> about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
> >
> > Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I
> can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!!
> But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and
> that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
> >
> > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III
> in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It
> seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly
> awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored
> by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely,
> degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly.
> The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions,
> rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to
> choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I
> don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion
> either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about
> Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all
> sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in
> favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
> Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless
> reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of
> Edward IV?
> >
> > --- In , "elena_nuk" maia@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more
> well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson
> are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> > >
> > > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if any
> of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go back
> to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard
> III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does
> raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> > >
> > > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine representation,
> but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the imagination"
> (I rather like that sentiment!)
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and, what
> was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> > >
> > > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed than
> I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded by
> many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but
> since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle,
> I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of
> bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to
> speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory
> chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it
> will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later
> texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected
> in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to
> start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are
> partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even
> aspire to!
> > >
> > > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them as
> I'm reading it.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: A brief rant on Kindle--was: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kind
2011-12-12 07:43:23
--- On Mon, 12/12/11, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
Amazon had tried, and continues to try, to dominiate the ebook market.
When they produced their ereader, Kindle, instead of using ePub, the
public standard and already existing format, Amazon created a
proprietary format--mobi--for their ebooks. By creating this format and
forcing Amazon ebooks to adhere to this standard, those who own other
ereaders can't directly read ebooks only available at Amazon. Nor can
you read ePub format directly on a Kindle. Of course, there is some free
software that will convert mobi to epub and vise versa, but that
requires some extra steps. (Nook uses ePub.) It is my opinion that
Amazon implemented the mobi format for their ereader to lock in Kindle
owners to buy ebooks exclusively at their site.
As it happens, Google Books support two formats, ePub and PDF. Kindles
can read PDF files, but I don't know if the text quality of PDF on
Kindles matches the text quality of the ePub format on Nook or other
ereaders.
Joan
---
Well that's good business sense, isn't it? ~There are similar constraints in a whole range of products - DVDs and the Region thing for a start. I don't think we can fault Amazon for having invented a good product and then trying to tie in customers to buy ebooks from them.
Pamela
Amazon had tried, and continues to try, to dominiate the ebook market.
When they produced their ereader, Kindle, instead of using ePub, the
public standard and already existing format, Amazon created a
proprietary format--mobi--for their ebooks. By creating this format and
forcing Amazon ebooks to adhere to this standard, those who own other
ereaders can't directly read ebooks only available at Amazon. Nor can
you read ePub format directly on a Kindle. Of course, there is some free
software that will convert mobi to epub and vise versa, but that
requires some extra steps. (Nook uses ePub.) It is my opinion that
Amazon implemented the mobi format for their ereader to lock in Kindle
owners to buy ebooks exclusively at their site.
As it happens, Google Books support two formats, ePub and PDF. Kindles
can read PDF files, but I don't know if the text quality of PDF on
Kindles matches the text quality of the ePub format on Nook or other
ereaders.
Joan
---
Well that's good business sense, isn't it? ~There are similar constraints in a whole range of products - DVDs and the Region thing for a start. I don't think we can fault Amazon for having invented a good product and then trying to tie in customers to buy ebooks from them.
Pamela
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 08:07:43
Hi Barbara,
I think it may serve (in some capacity) by way of explanation of the
seeming lack of available resources, accounts and possibly even some
aspects of behavior, but I'm not sure it offers any excuse!
--- In , "barbaragd@..."
<barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common
with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers
originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially
brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
>
>
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" maia@
wrote:
> >
> > Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking
about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
> >
> > Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I
can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!!
But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and
that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
> >
> > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III
in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It
seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly
awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored
by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely,
degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly.
The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions,
rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to
choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I
don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion
either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about
Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all
sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in
favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless
reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of
Edward IV?
> >
> > --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more
well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson
are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> > >
> > > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if
any of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go
back to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of
Richard III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he
does raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> > >
> > > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine
representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of
the imagination" (I rather like that sentiment!)
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and,
what was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> > >
> > > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed
than I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded
by many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but
since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle,
I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of
bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to
speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory
chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it
will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later
texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected
in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to
start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are
partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even
aspire to!
> > >
> > > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them
as I'm reading it.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> >
>
I think it may serve (in some capacity) by way of explanation of the
seeming lack of available resources, accounts and possibly even some
aspects of behavior, but I'm not sure it offers any excuse!
--- In , "barbaragd@..."
<barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common
with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers
originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially
brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
>
>
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" maia@
wrote:
> >
> > Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking
about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
> >
> > Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think I
can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand on!!
But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least and
that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
> >
> > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III
in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It
seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly
awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored
by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely,
degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly.
The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions,
rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to
choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I
don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion
either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about
Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all
sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in
favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless
reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of
Edward IV?
> >
> > --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly more
well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the Carson
are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> > >
> > > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if
any of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go
back to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of
Richard III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he
does raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> > >
> > > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine
representation, but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of
the imagination" (I rather like that sentiment!)
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and,
what was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> > >
> > > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed
than I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded
by many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true, but
since most of the more recent books are simply not available on Kindle,
I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff of
bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so to
speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the introductory
chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it
will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for later
texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be reflected
in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to
start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers are
partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to even
aspire to!
> > >
> > > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear them
as I'm reading it.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 08:20:14
There was a television court room drama of which you can get a transcript The Trial of Richard III by Richard Drewett & Mark Redhead (Sutton, 1984) (ISBN 978-0862991982)
An excellent read, very fair to all parties.
An excellent read, very fair to all parties.
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-12 09:25:23
Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
All those printers, bookshop keepers, librarians etc thrown into unemployment!
Storing the collective memory on "a cloud" is beyond our control, and makes us powerless.
Artificial intelligence is already here. It is us - we have become the medium and the message, and it is not just the book that is under assault, there is something else being lost as well....
And let us not forget the only safe way to store any written word and ensure it survives is by writing it down using pen and paper.
Paul
On 11 Dec 2011, at 14:15, elena_nuk wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
All those printers, bookshop keepers, librarians etc thrown into unemployment!
Storing the collective memory on "a cloud" is beyond our control, and makes us powerless.
Artificial intelligence is already here. It is us - we have become the medium and the message, and it is not just the book that is under assault, there is something else being lost as well....
And let us not forget the only safe way to store any written word and ensure it survives is by writing it down using pen and paper.
Paul
On 11 Dec 2011, at 14:15, elena_nuk wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-12 09:34:47
I don't think anyone would argue against real books, Paul! And I think smart phones are a fad that will disappear when people realize how stupid they are. But there is a place for ebook readers. I cannot slip the complete novels of Dickens into my handbag, unless they are downloaded to a device. And enlarged print is necessary to some, particularly those of us with impaired vision. I shall continue to use both, and have no fears for the book industry, which will take a bit of a knock, and then get back to business as usual. Best wishes, Nina
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
> But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
> But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 10:07:58
That television show The Trial of Richard III was released on DVD - ironically on a special edition of Laurence Olivier's Richard III - released in 2006.
--- In , "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
>
> There was a television court room drama of which you can get a transcript The Trial of Richard III by Richard Drewett & Mark Redhead (Sutton, 1984) (ISBN 978-0862991982)
> An excellent read, very fair to all parties.
>
--- In , "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
>
> There was a television court room drama of which you can get a transcript The Trial of Richard III by Richard Drewett & Mark Redhead (Sutton, 1984) (ISBN 978-0862991982)
> An excellent read, very fair to all parties.
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-12 14:04:02
Amen.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
All those printers, bookshop keepers, librarians etc thrown into unemployment!
Storing the collective memory on "a cloud" is beyond our control, and makes us powerless.
Artificial intelligence is already here. It is us - we have become the medium and the message, and it is not just the book that is under assault, there is something else being lost as well....
And let us not forget the only safe way to store any written word and ensure it survives is by writing it down using pen and paper.
Paul
On 11 Dec 2011, at 14:15, elena_nuk wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
All those printers, bookshop keepers, librarians etc thrown into unemployment!
Storing the collective memory on "a cloud" is beyond our control, and makes us powerless.
Artificial intelligence is already here. It is us - we have become the medium and the message, and it is not just the book that is under assault, there is something else being lost as well....
And let us not forget the only safe way to store any written word and ensure it survives is by writing it down using pen and paper.
Paul
On 11 Dec 2011, at 14:15, elena_nuk wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-12 14:49:47
Thus far I've not been able to read even one book on the Kindle "gifted" to me, but I read three real books. Yes, the Kindle and similar readers may be convenient, but if the publishers force us to turn to them? That's really the question here. Like finding a phone booth, if you don't happen to have a cell phone....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: boyd.nina <ninaboyd@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
I don't think anyone would argue against real books, Paul! And I think smart phones are a fad that will disappear when people realize how stupid they are. But there is a place for ebook readers. I cannot slip the complete novels of Dickens into my handbag, unless they are downloaded to a device. And enlarged print is necessary to some, particularly those of us with impaired vision. I shall continue to use both, and have no fears for the book industry, which will take a bit of a knock, and then get back to business as usual. Best wishes, Nina
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
> But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: boyd.nina <ninaboyd@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
I don't think anyone would argue against real books, Paul! And I think smart phones are a fad that will disappear when people realize how stupid they are. But there is a place for ebook readers. I cannot slip the complete novels of Dickens into my handbag, unless they are downloaded to a device. And enlarged print is necessary to some, particularly those of us with impaired vision. I shall continue to use both, and have no fears for the book industry, which will take a bit of a knock, and then get back to business as usual. Best wishes, Nina
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
> But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 15:29:56
I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
<http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
Fire.
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Ooh, thank you for this link Joan, I'll definitely look there. You're
absolutely right about Amazon and they remind me of the way M$ seem to
control so much of the computer content nowadays, as you say, they tie
you in (along with the authors/publishers) and there's something quite
unpleasant about it when you stop to think it over!
>
> I also think tablets (as suggested by Maria, might well have worked
better. I did a fair bit of research before buying the Kindle and
finally opted for it mostly for ease of downloading and uniformity -
meaning that if I stuck to Amazon books, much as I dislike the monopoly
they have created, I wouldn't need to pfaff about with software and
additional programmes but it may well have been a bit of a false premise
as I am finding that many of the things I wish to read aren't available
on there. Amazon themselves seem to suggested Project Gutenberg and a
couple of other sites (including an archive site based in the US) and
I'm not yet sure how the compatibility works but assume there must be
some, since Amazon themselves link one to their offerings.
>
> I'm finding Walpole fascinating for many, possibly suprious, reasons!
He writes in such an incensed manner at times and has an endearing way
of writing "I don't wish to be rude about the writings/skills of X, Y, Z
as a historian, but..." and then writing something horribly rude about
them! He's also quite interesting on points of grammatical
interpretation of some of the original texts which, although one could
argue are slightly spurious arguments, they do seem add to the overall
picture of 'myth-interpretation' that has happened over the years in
relation to Richard III.
>
> What I'm finding fascinating, and frankly it leaves me increasingly
incredulous, is that it would seem even a cursory reading of the actual
historical events (coupled with provable and multi-sourced
dates/calendars) of the period, is how ANYONE could believe Richard to
be guilty of even one tenth of the things which are commonly ascribed to
him. Walpole sets out a list of 'charges' against him and then, one by
one, attempts to refute them or, in not refute, then at least
contextualize them. I am finding that some of his assumptions are at
times a little difficult to source - he does have a habit of using
phrases akin to "it's commonly accepted that" without indicating WHO
commonly accepts it or why and he also seems to infer a slightly strange
logic at times but, on the whole, he seems at least to be trying to
present a reasonably straight approach.
>
> I will admit that I'm already totally hooked into the entire period of
history as it seems to exemplify my own belief that archives, historical
texts, newspapers of the time (or similar) are only ever as good as the
historians recording them.
>
> I also think Shakespeare has a lot to answer for in the case of
Richard III! I suppose we should be grateful that Charles Dickens
chose not to write on the subject too!
>
> It would be a fascinating project to get one of the "48 hours Mystery"
or "Rough Justice" type programmes which we are so regularly subjected
to on the television nowadays, to do an investigation into Richard III
and the events which seem to have surrounded him for generations. A
forensic investigation using modern-day analysts, might cheapen the
whole subject somewhat, but would nevertheless be an interesting thing
to attempt possibly.
>
> Thanks so much for the links and also to Maria for the information
about tablets.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > Check out the Online library <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html>
> > at the American Branch website for reprints from Croyland, Walpole,
> > Fabyan, etc.
> >
> > 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/> --trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking
> > about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
> > >
> > > Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think
I
> > can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand
on!!
> > But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least
and
> > that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
> > >
> > > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard
III
> > in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV.
It
> > seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the
seemingly
> > awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although
colored
> > by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely,
> > degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more
bluntly.
> > The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions,
> > rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history
seems to
> > choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I
> > don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed
opinion
> > either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said
about
> > Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in
all
> > sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in
> > favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
> > Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless
> > reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> > >
> > > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of
> > Edward IV?
> > >
> > > --- In , "elena_nuk" maia@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly
more
> > well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the
Carson
> > are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> > > >
> > > > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if
any
> > of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go
back
> > to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of
Richard
> > III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does
> > raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> > > >
> > > > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine
representation,
> > but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the
imagination"
> > (I rather like that sentiment!)
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and,
what
> > was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> > > >
> > > > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed
than
> > I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded
by
> > many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true,
but
> > since most of the more recent books are simply not available on
Kindle,
> > I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff
of
> > bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so
to
> > speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the
introductory
> > chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it
> > will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for
later
> > texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be
reflected
> > in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to
> > start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers
are
> > partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to
even
> > aspire to!
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear
them as
> > I'm reading it.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
<http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
Fire.
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Ooh, thank you for this link Joan, I'll definitely look there. You're
absolutely right about Amazon and they remind me of the way M$ seem to
control so much of the computer content nowadays, as you say, they tie
you in (along with the authors/publishers) and there's something quite
unpleasant about it when you stop to think it over!
>
> I also think tablets (as suggested by Maria, might well have worked
better. I did a fair bit of research before buying the Kindle and
finally opted for it mostly for ease of downloading and uniformity -
meaning that if I stuck to Amazon books, much as I dislike the monopoly
they have created, I wouldn't need to pfaff about with software and
additional programmes but it may well have been a bit of a false premise
as I am finding that many of the things I wish to read aren't available
on there. Amazon themselves seem to suggested Project Gutenberg and a
couple of other sites (including an archive site based in the US) and
I'm not yet sure how the compatibility works but assume there must be
some, since Amazon themselves link one to their offerings.
>
> I'm finding Walpole fascinating for many, possibly suprious, reasons!
He writes in such an incensed manner at times and has an endearing way
of writing "I don't wish to be rude about the writings/skills of X, Y, Z
as a historian, but..." and then writing something horribly rude about
them! He's also quite interesting on points of grammatical
interpretation of some of the original texts which, although one could
argue are slightly spurious arguments, they do seem add to the overall
picture of 'myth-interpretation' that has happened over the years in
relation to Richard III.
>
> What I'm finding fascinating, and frankly it leaves me increasingly
incredulous, is that it would seem even a cursory reading of the actual
historical events (coupled with provable and multi-sourced
dates/calendars) of the period, is how ANYONE could believe Richard to
be guilty of even one tenth of the things which are commonly ascribed to
him. Walpole sets out a list of 'charges' against him and then, one by
one, attempts to refute them or, in not refute, then at least
contextualize them. I am finding that some of his assumptions are at
times a little difficult to source - he does have a habit of using
phrases akin to "it's commonly accepted that" without indicating WHO
commonly accepts it or why and he also seems to infer a slightly strange
logic at times but, on the whole, he seems at least to be trying to
present a reasonably straight approach.
>
> I will admit that I'm already totally hooked into the entire period of
history as it seems to exemplify my own belief that archives, historical
texts, newspapers of the time (or similar) are only ever as good as the
historians recording them.
>
> I also think Shakespeare has a lot to answer for in the case of
Richard III! I suppose we should be grateful that Charles Dickens
chose not to write on the subject too!
>
> It would be a fascinating project to get one of the "48 hours Mystery"
or "Rough Justice" type programmes which we are so regularly subjected
to on the television nowadays, to do an investigation into Richard III
and the events which seem to have surrounded him for generations. A
forensic investigation using modern-day analysts, might cheapen the
whole subject somewhat, but would nevertheless be an interesting thing
to attempt possibly.
>
> Thanks so much for the links and also to Maria for the information
about tablets.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > Check out the Online library <http://www.r3.org/bookcase/index.html>
> > at the American Branch website for reprints from Croyland, Walpole,
> > Fabyan, etc.
> >
> > 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/> --trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thought I'd just change the title since I suddenly started talking
> > about the Walpole book without warning in my last post (below)!
> > >
> > > Judy - as someone who invested in mini-discs, I really don't think
I
> > can say much about laser discs as I wouldn't have a leg to stand
on!!
> > But, yes, I totally agree, Amazon can be misleading to say the least
and
> > that's if you even manage to get a reply from them!
> > >
> > > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard
III
> > in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV.
It
> > seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the
seemingly
> > awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although
colored
> > by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely,
> > degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more
bluntly.
> > The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions,
> > rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history
seems to
> > choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I
> > don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed
opinion
> > either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said
about
> > Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in
all
> > sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in
> > favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
> > Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless
> > reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> > >
> > > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of
> > Edward IV?
> > >
> > > --- In , "elena_nuk" maia@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's proving nigh on impossible to find any of the seemingly
more
> > well-researched books available for Kindle. The Kendall and the
Carson
> > are both, as I have said, not yet kindled.
> > > >
> > > > So, while I wait to see if Mr Hancock responds in any way or if
any
> > of the publishers respond to my kindle requests, I've decided to go
back
> > to the Walpole text "Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of
Richard
> > III". I'm sure there are many problems with this text but he does
> > raise some things straight away which still seem valid ...
> > > >
> > > > "I did not take Shakespeare's tragedy for a genuine
representation,
> > but I did take the story of that reign for a tragedy of the
imagination"
> > (I rather like that sentiment!)
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > "Many of the crimes imputed to Richard seemed improbably; and,
what
> > was stronger, contrary to his interest".
> > > >
> > > > I have no doubt that many of you who are way more well informed
than
> > I am, will feel that this book is outdated and has been superseded
by
> > many better informed texts and I have no doubt that this is true,
but
> > since most of the more recent books are simply not available on
Kindle,
> > I thought I may as well give this a proper go. I sense a fair whiff
of
> > bias already but, to be fair, he does lay his cards on the table so
to
> > speak, both in the very title of his book and also in the
introductory
> > chapter. I also think the historical timing of his authorship of it
> > will mean that some of the documents which may have been used for
later
> > texts, somehow remain hidden to him and clearly that will be
reflected
> > in whatever he has to say. But at least it's available and seems to
> > start out fairly hopefully, with his open comment that all writers
are
> > partial in some way and that total objectivity is very difficult to
even
> > aspire to!
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts about it I'd love to hear
them as
> > I'm reading it.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 16:07:12
I saw that trial and on the evidence presented I ended by thinking Richard might be guilty, I am a firm supporter of Richard, common sense says he didnt order the death of his nephews, he was a very enlightened man for the age in which he lived
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 16:10:37
Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> Fire.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> Fire.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 16:17:50
Hello again Elena - I see you are really saturating yourself in the Richard III story, so may I invite you to contact me directly off-list and I'll be happy to assist you with family trees and scans of illustrations, etc, that appear in my book.
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> Fire.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> Fire.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 16:19:35
On a slightly separate note, I've been involved on the peripheries of the Leveson Inquiry these past few weeks and it's occurring to me that the 'sins' attributed to Richard are almost a kind of 15th tabloid version of the history! If Hancock had been writing for the Sun, perhaps he'd have titled his book "it was the cat wot done it"! But, seriously, it's interesting to note the parallels in reporting, despite the massive time gap, and the agendas in play from each historian or chronicler. Perhaps I'm just obsessed with the Leveson, but I truly do think that Richard III would be up there, giving his testimony regarding the total defamation of his character, if he'd existed today!
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> > traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> > people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> > for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> > <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> > will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> > anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> > probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> > Fire.
> >
> > 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> >
>
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> > traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> > people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> > for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> > <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> > will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> > anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> > probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> > Fire.
> >
> > 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> >
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 16:20:04
Sorry, I was interrupted and forgot to give my address: it's emailATannettecarson.plus.com, substituting @ for AT.
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> Fire.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> Fire.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 16:31:24
That is extremely kind of you, thank you so much. I shall definitely take you up on that and I hope I'm not being too tiresome to the group with my somewhat endless questions!
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hello again Elena - I see you are really saturating yourself in the Richard III story, so may I invite you to contact me directly off-list and I'll be happy to assist you with family trees and scans of illustrations, etc, that appear in my book.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> > traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> > people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> > for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> > <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> > will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> > anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> > probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> > Fire.
> >
> > 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hello again Elena - I see you are really saturating yourself in the Richard III story, so may I invite you to contact me directly off-list and I'll be happy to assist you with family trees and scans of illustrations, etc, that appear in my book.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> > traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> > people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> > for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> > <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> > will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> > anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> > probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> > Fire.
> >
> > 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 16:53:34
It was not because Edward IV was a second son that he was not brought up as a prospective monarch - his elder brother Henry of York died young, so for all practical purposes Edward was his father's heir from the age when he would have become aware of such matters. However, Edward's likelihood of succeeding to the throne was not established until his father's death when he was eighteen - from the age of 11 Edward of Lancaster would have preceded him.
Edward was not criticised by Tudor historians or Shakespeare as he was the father of the first Tudor queen and the Tudors owed their claims to legitimacy to that connection.
Richard G
--- In , "barbaragd@..." <barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@> wrote:
> >
> > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy, Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward IV?
Edward was not criticised by Tudor historians or Shakespeare as he was the father of the first Tudor queen and the Tudors owed their claims to legitimacy to that connection.
Richard G
--- In , "barbaragd@..." <barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@> wrote:
> >
> > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy, Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward IV?
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 17:20:25
I understand the political motivations at the time and for some long time afterwards, but I suppose I'm surprized that more hasn't been made of Edward's behavior in recent times. After all, there must surely be documents around that would bear more scrutiny. Something along the lines of the Paston letters for example, if not more official documents.
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> It was not because Edward IV was a second son that he was not brought up as a prospective monarch - his elder brother Henry of York died young, so for all practical purposes Edward was his father's heir from the age when he would have become aware of such matters. However, Edward's likelihood of succeeding to the throne was not established until his father's death when he was eighteen - from the age of 11 Edward of Lancaster would have preceded him.
>
> Edward was not criticised by Tudor historians or Shakespeare as he was the father of the first Tudor queen and the Tudors owed their claims to legitimacy to that connection.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@> wrote:
> >
> > Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
> >
> > --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy, Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> > >
> > > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward IV?
>
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> It was not because Edward IV was a second son that he was not brought up as a prospective monarch - his elder brother Henry of York died young, so for all practical purposes Edward was his father's heir from the age when he would have become aware of such matters. However, Edward's likelihood of succeeding to the throne was not established until his father's death when he was eighteen - from the age of 11 Edward of Lancaster would have preceded him.
>
> Edward was not criticised by Tudor historians or Shakespeare as he was the father of the first Tudor queen and the Tudors owed their claims to legitimacy to that connection.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@> wrote:
> >
> > Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
> >
> > --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy, Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of the Croyland Chronicle!
> > >
> > > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward IV?
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-12 21:55:35
There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... ! Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual intercourse.
The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100 percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> Fire.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100 percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> I ended up getting an Acer tablet at Staples and find it great for
> traveling. I like going to Staples because they have knowledgeable
> people who can actually help in determining which is the best product
> for you. As far as conversion goes, download Calibre
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> , an ebook management system. With it, you
> will be able to convert PDFs to your reader's format. I don't know
> anything about Kindle Fire, but if it supports apps, then you'll
> probably be able to read ePub and other formats directly on Amazon's
> Fire.
>
> 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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
>
Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-12 22:36:33
Hi Annette,
Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s for this are :
(1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
(2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
(3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
(4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
(5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler, or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political' motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
(6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material in order to see which has more weight.
(please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented Hancock here!)
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... ! Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual intercourse.
>
> The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100 percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s for this are :
(1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
(2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
(3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
(4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
(5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler, or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political' motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
(6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material in order to see which has more weight.
(please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented Hancock here!)
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... ! Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual intercourse.
>
> The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100 percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-13 03:43:36
I would have made more sense giving other motives for Edward IV's
irresponsibility - but in any case, I don't really think there are any
excuses that would work sufficiently well. Besides, second son George VI
made a fairly good job of it, while his elder brother, as far as we can
gather under the circumstances, did not.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Richard
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 3:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various
observations...
It was not because Edward IV was a second son that he was not brought up as
a prospective monarch - his elder brother Henry of York died young, so for
all practical purposes Edward was his father's heir from the age when he
would have become aware of such matters. However, Edward's likelihood of
succeeding to the throne was not established until his father's death when
he was eighteen - from the age of 11 Edward of Lancaster would have preceded
him.
Edward was not criticised by Tudor historians or Shakespeare as he was the
father of the first Tudor queen and the Tudors owed their claims to
legitimacy to that connection.
Richard G
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "barbaragd@..."
<barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common with
his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers originally
expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially brought up as a
prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "elena_nuk" <maia@>
wrote:
> >
> > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in
any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as
though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior
of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which
he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally
lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears
to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet
Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial
bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to
make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why
more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre
behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked
him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of
the Croyland Chronicle!
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward
IV?
irresponsibility - but in any case, I don't really think there are any
excuses that would work sufficiently well. Besides, second son George VI
made a fairly good job of it, while his elder brother, as far as we can
gather under the circumstances, did not.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Richard
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 3:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various
observations...
It was not because Edward IV was a second son that he was not brought up as
a prospective monarch - his elder brother Henry of York died young, so for
all practical purposes Edward was his father's heir from the age when he
would have become aware of such matters. However, Edward's likelihood of
succeeding to the throne was not established until his father's death when
he was eighteen - from the age of 11 Edward of Lancaster would have preceded
him.
Edward was not criticised by Tudor historians or Shakespeare as he was the
father of the first Tudor queen and the Tudors owed their claims to
legitimacy to that connection.
Richard G
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "barbaragd@..."
<barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common with
his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers originally
expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially brought up as a
prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "elena_nuk" <maia@>
wrote:
> >
> > Something that occurs to me regularly when reading about Richard III in
any context, is the remarkable lack of criticism of Edward IV. It seems as
though the Richard controversy has overshadowed the seemingly awful behavior
of Edward! His attitude towards women, although colored by the time in which
he lived, seems very casual to put it politely, degrading and totally
lacking in human decency to put it more bluntly. The whole problem appears
to have come about because of HIS actions, rather than Richard's! And yet
Richard is the one whom history seems to choose to focus on as the perennial
bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't know nearly enough about Richard III to
make an informed opinion either way yet, but I am constantly wondering why
more isn't said about Edward's behavior, reign and generally rather bizarre
behavior in all sorts of respects. It seems as though history has overlooked
him in favor of Richard III, possibly based almost entirely on fallacy,
Shakespeare and de Combines, Mancini and the seemignly tireless reporting of
the Croyland Chronicle!
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just missed all those tomes about the misdeeds of Edward
IV?
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-13 10:39:18
Guilty of what?
First show me proof of a crime, then present any evidence, if you can find it.
Paul
On 12 Dec 2011, at 16:07, Mo Harris wrote:
> I saw that trial and on the evidence presented I ended by thinking Richard might be guilty, I am a firm supporter of Richard, common sense says he didnt order the death of his nephews, he was a very enlightened man for the age in which he lived
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
First show me proof of a crime, then present any evidence, if you can find it.
Paul
On 12 Dec 2011, at 16:07, Mo Harris wrote:
> I saw that trial and on the evidence presented I ended by thinking Richard might be guilty, I am a firm supporter of Richard, common sense says he didnt order the death of his nephews, he was a very enlightened man for the age in which he lived
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-13 10:41:26
On 12 Dec 2011, at 16:19, elena_nuk wrote:
> I truly do think that Richard III would be up there, giving his testimony regarding the total defamation of his character, if he'd existed today!
But he does exist today, thanks to all those who support his cause.
Paul
> I truly do think that Richard III would be up there, giving his testimony regarding the total defamation of his character, if he'd existed today!
But he does exist today, thanks to all those who support his cause.
Paul
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 11:16:36
Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC, Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by revealing his first marriage?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Hi Annette,
Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s for this are :
(1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
(2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
(3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
(4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
(5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler, or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political' motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
(6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material in order to see which has more weight.
(please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented Hancock here!)
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... ! Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual intercourse.
>
> The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100 percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by revealing his first marriage?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Hi Annette,
Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s for this are :
(1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
(2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
(3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
(4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
(5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler, or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political' motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
(6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material in order to see which has more weight.
(please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented Hancock here!)
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... ! Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual intercourse.
>
> The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100 percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 14:54:27
Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM in
Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My understanding
is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So he
presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was during a
break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby approached
Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also to
explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in
the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes
so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
>
> As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's
place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's
bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
revealing his first marriage?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of
Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the
person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing'
half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the
one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood,
shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
>
> Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s
for this are :
>
> (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent
to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous
Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this
implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard
than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
>
> (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at
the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it
as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing
plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
>
> (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
>
> (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington
'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
(although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
>
> (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not
sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler,
or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the
problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't
use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
>
> (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus
Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
>
> I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am
still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material
in order to see which has more weight.
>
> (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
Hancock here!)
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
email@ wrote:
> >
> > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one
of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do
marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not
invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual
intercourse.
> >
> > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can
be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington
as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the
length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and
heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were
connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges
in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their
conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold
the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more
than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I
think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about
the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
various observations...
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read
and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so,
from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> >
> > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see
it.
> >
> > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the
illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they
don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way,
I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to
look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the
book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts
which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> >
> > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and
in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in
a kindle format.
> >
> > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to
ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm
taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any
written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts
of Parliament?)
> >
> > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly
dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III
and his history.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My understanding
is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So he
presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was during a
break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby approached
Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also to
explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in
the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes
so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
>
> As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's
place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's
bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
revealing his first marriage?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of
Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the
person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing'
half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the
one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood,
shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
>
> Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s
for this are :
>
> (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent
to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous
Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this
implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard
than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
>
> (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at
the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it
as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing
plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
>
> (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
>
> (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington
'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
(although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
>
> (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not
sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler,
or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the
problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't
use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
>
> (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus
Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
>
> I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am
still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material
in order to see which has more weight.
>
> (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
Hancock here!)
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
email@ wrote:
> >
> > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one
of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do
marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not
invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual
intercourse.
> >
> > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can
be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington
as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the
length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and
heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were
connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges
in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their
conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold
the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more
than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I
think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about
the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
various observations...
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read
and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so,
from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> >
> > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see
it.
> >
> > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the
illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they
don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way,
I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to
look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the
book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts
which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> >
> > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and
in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in
a kindle format.
> >
> > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to
ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm
taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any
written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts
of Parliament?)
> >
> > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly
dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III
and his history.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 15:08:43
Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But, as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have told him, despite it not being his place...
But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved as he's clearly done a great deal.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM in
> Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My understanding
> is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So he
> presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was during a
> break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby approached
> Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also to
> explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in
> the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes
> so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's
> place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's
> bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> revealing his first marriage?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of
> Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the
> person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing'
> half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the
> one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood,
> shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> >
> > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s
> for this are :
> >
> > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent
> to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous
> Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this
> implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard
> than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
> >
> > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at
> the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it
> as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing
> plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> >
> > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> >
> > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington
> 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> >
> > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not
> sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler,
> or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the
> problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't
> use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
> >
> > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus
> Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> >
> > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am
> still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material
> in order to see which has more weight.
> >
> > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> Hancock here!)
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one
> of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do
> marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not
> invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual
> intercourse.
> > >
> > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can
> be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington
> as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the
> length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and
> heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were
> connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges
> in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their
> conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold
> the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more
> than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I
> think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about
> the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> various observations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read
> and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so,
> from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see
> it.
> > >
> > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the
> illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they
> don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way,
> I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to
> look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the
> book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts
> which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > >
> > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and
> in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in
> a kindle format.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to
> ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm
> taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any
> written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts
> of Parliament?)
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly
> dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III
> and his history.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But, as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have told him, despite it not being his place...
But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved as he's clearly done a great deal.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM in
> Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My understanding
> is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So he
> presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was during a
> break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby approached
> Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also to
> explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in
> the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes
> so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's
> place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's
> bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> revealing his first marriage?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of
> Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the
> person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing'
> half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the
> one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood,
> shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> >
> > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s
> for this are :
> >
> > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent
> to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous
> Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this
> implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard
> than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
> >
> > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at
> the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it
> as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing
> plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> >
> > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> >
> > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington
> 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> >
> > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not
> sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler,
> or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the
> problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't
> use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
> >
> > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus
> Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> >
> > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am
> still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material
> in order to see which has more weight.
> >
> > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> Hancock here!)
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one
> of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do
> marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not
> invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual
> intercourse.
> > >
> > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can
> be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington
> as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the
> length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and
> heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were
> connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges
> in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their
> conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold
> the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more
> than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I
> think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about
> the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> various observations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read
> and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so,
> from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see
> it.
> > >
> > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the
> illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they
> don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way,
> I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to
> look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the
> book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts
> which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > >
> > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and
> in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in
> a kindle format.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to
> ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm
> taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any
> written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts
> of Parliament?)
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly
> dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III
> and his history.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 16:22:32
I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when (according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June, returning later to execute Hastings?
----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM in
Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My understanding
is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So he
presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was during a
break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby approached
Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also to
explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in
the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes
so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
>
> As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's
place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's
bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
revealing his first marriage?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of
Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the
person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing'
half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the
one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood,
shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
>
> Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s
for this are :
>
> (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent
to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous
Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this
implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard
than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
>
> (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at
the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it
as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing
plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
>
> (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
>
> (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington
'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
(although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
>
> (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not
sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler,
or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the
problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't
use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
>
> (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus
Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
>
> I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am
still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material
in order to see which has more weight.
>
> (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
Hancock here!)
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
email@ wrote:
> >
> > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one
of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do
marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not
invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual
intercourse.
> >
> > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can
be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington
as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the
length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and
heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were
connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges
in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their
conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold
the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more
than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I
think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about
the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
various observations...
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read
and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so,
from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> >
> > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see
it.
> >
> > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the
illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they
don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way,
I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to
look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the
book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts
which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> >
> > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and
in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in
a kindle format.
> >
> > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to
ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm
taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any
written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts
of Parliament?)
> >
> > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly
dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III
and his history.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: joanszechtman
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM in
Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My understanding
is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So he
presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was during a
break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby approached
Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also to
explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in
the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes
so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
>
> As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's
place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's
bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
revealing his first marriage?
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of
Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the
person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing'
half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the
one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood,
shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
>
> Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s
for this are :
>
> (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent
to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous
Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this
implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard
than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
>
> (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at
the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it
as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing
plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
>
> (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
>
> (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington
'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
(although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
>
> (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not
sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler,
or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the
problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't
use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
>
> (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus
Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
>
> I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am
still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material
in order to see which has more weight.
>
> (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
Hancock here!)
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
email@ wrote:
> >
> > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one
of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do
marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not
invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual
intercourse.
> >
> > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can
be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington
as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the
length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and
heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were
connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges
in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their
conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold
the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more
than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I
think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about
the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
various observations...
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read
and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so,
from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> >
> > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see
it.
> >
> > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the
illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they
don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way,
I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to
look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the
book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts
which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> >
> > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and
in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in
a kindle format.
> >
> > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to
ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm
taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any
written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts
of Parliament?)
> >
> > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly
dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III
and his history.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 17:02:24
Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the decision to supplant Edward V?
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But, as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have told him, despite it not being his place...
But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved as he's clearly done a great deal.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM in
> Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My understanding
> is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So he
> presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was during a
> break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby approached
> Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also to
> explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in
> the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes
> so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's
> place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's
> bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> revealing his first marriage?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of
> Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the
> person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing'
> half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the
> one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood,
> shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> >
> > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s
> for this are :
> >
> > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent
> to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous
> Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this
> implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard
> than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
> >
> > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at
> the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it
> as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing
> plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> >
> > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> >
> > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington
> 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> >
> > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not
> sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler,
> or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the
> problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't
> use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
> >
> > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus
> Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> >
> > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am
> still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material
> in order to see which has more weight.
> >
> > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> Hancock here!)
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one
> of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do
> marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not
> invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual
> intercourse.
> > >
> > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can
> be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington
> as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the
> length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and
> heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were
> connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges
> in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their
> conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold
> the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more
> than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I
> think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about
> the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> various observations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read
> and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so,
> from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see
> it.
> > >
> > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the
> illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they
> don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way,
> I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to
> look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the
> book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts
> which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > >
> > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and
> in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in
> a kindle format.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to
> ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm
> taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any
> written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts
> of Parliament?)
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly
> dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III
> and his history.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: elena_nuk
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But, as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have told him, despite it not being his place...
But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved as he's clearly done a great deal.
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM in
> Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My understanding
> is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So he
> presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was during a
> break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby approached
> Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also to
> explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder in
> the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts Commynes
> so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of Gloucester's
> place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward IV's
> bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> revealing his first marriage?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of
> Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the
> person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing'
> half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the
> one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood,
> shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> >
> > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s
> for this are :
> >
> > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent
> to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous
> Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this
> implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard
> than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
> >
> > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at
> the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it
> as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing
> plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> >
> > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> >
> > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington
> 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> >
> > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not
> sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler,
> or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the
> problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't
> use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
> >
> > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus
> Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> >
> > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am
> still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material
> in order to see which has more weight.
> >
> > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> Hancock here!)
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one
> of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do
> marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not
> invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual
> intercourse.
> > >
> > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can
> be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington
> as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the
> length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and
> heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were
> connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges
> in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their
> conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold
> the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no more
> than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I
> think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about
> the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> various observations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read
> and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so,
> from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see
> it.
> > >
> > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the
> illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they
> don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way,
> I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to
> look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the
> book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts
> which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > >
> > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and
> in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in
> a kindle format.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to
> ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm
> taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any
> written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts
> of Parliament?)
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly
> dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III
> and his history.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 17:08:42
Yes. Along with Elena, I'm not entirely convinced that Hancock proves
his theory, but I do think that it has merit. One proof of Catesby's
importance that he uses is how lavishly Richard rewarded Catesby and how
high Catesby rose in Richard's reign after Hastings' execution. Catesby
was Hastings' attorney up to that point. My main disagreement with
Hancock is the precise timing. I do think Hancock backs his theory up
sufficiently for it to be seriously considered.
Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having
spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered
seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's
theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when
(according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June,
returning later to execute Hastings?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
>
>
>
> Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
in
> Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
understanding
> is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
he
> presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
during a
> break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
approached
> Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also
to
> explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
in
> the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
Commynes
> so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
Gloucester's
> place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
IV's
> bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> revealing his first marriage?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
of
> Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was
the
> person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
'missing'
> half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
the
> one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
mood,
> shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> >
> > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
evidence/s
> for this are :
> >
> > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
subsequent
> to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
generous
> Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
this
> implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
Richard
> than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
pre-contract.
> >
> > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there
at
> the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed
it
> as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
allowing
> plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> >
> > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> >
> > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
Stillington
> 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> >
> > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
not
> sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
chronicler,
> or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
the
> problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
doesn't
> use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
texts.
> >
> > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
Titulus
> Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> >
> > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but
am
> still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
material
> in order to see which has more weight.
> >
> > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> Hancock here!)
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was
one
> of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
"I do
> marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but
not
> invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
sexual
> intercourse.
> > >
> > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
can
> be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
Stillington
> as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
the
> length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible
and
> heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences'
were
> connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
Judges
> in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
their
> conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to
hold
> the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
more
> than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are,
I
> think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
about
> the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> various observations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
read
> and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And
so,
> from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to
see
> it.
> > >
> > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at
the
> illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
they
> don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
way,
> I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
me to
> look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
the
> book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
excerpts
> which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > >
> > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain
and
> in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
available in
> a kindle format.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
to
> ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
(I'm
> taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
any
> written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
Acts
> of Parliament?)
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
slightly
> dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard
III
> and his history.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
his theory, but I do think that it has merit. One proof of Catesby's
importance that he uses is how lavishly Richard rewarded Catesby and how
high Catesby rose in Richard's reign after Hastings' execution. Catesby
was Hastings' attorney up to that point. My main disagreement with
Hancock is the precise timing. I do think Hancock backs his theory up
sufficiently for it to be seriously considered.
Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having
spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered
seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's
theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when
(according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June,
returning later to execute Hastings?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
>
>
>
> Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
in
> Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
understanding
> is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
he
> presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
during a
> break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
approached
> Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also
to
> explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
in
> the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
Commynes
> so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
Gloucester's
> place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
IV's
> bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> revealing his first marriage?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
of
> Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was
the
> person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
'missing'
> half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
the
> one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
mood,
> shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> >
> > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
evidence/s
> for this are :
> >
> > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
subsequent
> to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
generous
> Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
this
> implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
Richard
> than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
pre-contract.
> >
> > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there
at
> the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed
it
> as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
allowing
> plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> >
> > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> >
> > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
Stillington
> 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> >
> > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
not
> sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
chronicler,
> or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
the
> problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
doesn't
> use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
texts.
> >
> > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
Titulus
> Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> >
> > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but
am
> still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
material
> in order to see which has more weight.
> >
> > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> Hancock here!)
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was
one
> of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
"I do
> marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but
not
> invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
sexual
> intercourse.
> > >
> > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
can
> be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
Stillington
> as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
the
> length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible
and
> heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences'
were
> connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
Judges
> in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
their
> conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to
hold
> the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
more
> than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are,
I
> think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
about
> the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> various observations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
read
> and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And
so,
> from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to
see
> it.
> > >
> > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at
the
> illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
they
> don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
way,
> I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
me to
> look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
the
> book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
excerpts
> which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > >
> > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain
and
> in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
available in
> a kindle format.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
to
> ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
(I'm
> taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
any
> written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
Acts
> of Parliament?)
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
slightly
> dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard
III
> and his history.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 17:11:27
Joan, the "come clean" theory is the one I favour as well.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Yes. Along with Elena, I'm not entirely convinced that Hancock proves
his theory, but I do think that it has merit. One proof of Catesby's
importance that he uses is how lavishly Richard rewarded Catesby and how
high Catesby rose in Richard's reign after Hastings' execution. Catesby
was Hastings' attorney up to that point. My main disagreement with
Hancock is the precise timing. I do think Hancock backs his theory up
sufficiently for it to be seriously considered.
Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having
spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered
seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's
theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when
(according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June,
returning later to execute Hastings?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
>
>
>
> Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
in
> Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
understanding
> is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
he
> presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
during a
> break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
approached
> Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also
to
> explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
in
> the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
Commynes
> so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
Gloucester's
> place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
IV's
> bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> revealing his first marriage?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
of
> Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was
the
> person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
'missing'
> half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
the
> one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
mood,
> shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> >
> > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
evidence/s
> for this are :
> >
> > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
subsequent
> to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
generous
> Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
this
> implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
Richard
> than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
pre-contract.
> >
> > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there
at
> the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed
it
> as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
allowing
> plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> >
> > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> >
> > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
Stillington
> 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> >
> > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
not
> sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
chronicler,
> or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
the
> problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
doesn't
> use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
texts.
> >
> > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
Titulus
> Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> >
> > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but
am
> still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
material
> in order to see which has more weight.
> >
> > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> Hancock here!)
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was
one
> of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
"I do
> marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but
not
> invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
sexual
> intercourse.
> > >
> > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
can
> be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
Stillington
> as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
the
> length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible
and
> heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences'
were
> connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
Judges
> in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
their
> conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to
hold
> the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
more
> than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are,
I
> think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
about
> the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> various observations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
read
> and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And
so,
> from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to
see
> it.
> > >
> > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at
the
> illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
they
> don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
way,
> I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
me to
> look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
the
> book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
excerpts
> which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > >
> > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain
and
> in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
available in
> a kindle format.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
to
> ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
(I'm
> taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
any
> written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
Acts
> of Parliament?)
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
slightly
> dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard
III
> and his history.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Yes. Along with Elena, I'm not entirely convinced that Hancock proves
his theory, but I do think that it has merit. One proof of Catesby's
importance that he uses is how lavishly Richard rewarded Catesby and how
high Catesby rose in Richard's reign after Hastings' execution. Catesby
was Hastings' attorney up to that point. My main disagreement with
Hancock is the precise timing. I do think Hancock backs his theory up
sufficiently for it to be seriously considered.
Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having
spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered
seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's
theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when
(according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June,
returning later to execute Hastings?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: joanszechtman
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
>
>
>
> Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
in
> Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
understanding
> is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
he
> presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
during a
> break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
approached
> Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also
to
> explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
in
> the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
Commynes
> so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> >
> > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
Gloucester's
> place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
IV's
> bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> revealing his first marriage?
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette,
> >
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
of
> Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was
the
> person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
'missing'
> half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
the
> one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
mood,
> shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> >
> > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
evidence/s
> for this are :
> >
> > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
subsequent
> to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
generous
> Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
this
> implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
Richard
> than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
pre-contract.
> >
> > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there
at
> the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed
it
> as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
allowing
> plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> >
> > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> >
> > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
Stillington
> 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> >
> > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
not
> sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
chronicler,
> or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
the
> problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
doesn't
> use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
texts.
> >
> > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
Titulus
> Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> >
> > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but
am
> still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
material
> in order to see which has more weight.
> >
> > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> Hancock here!)
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was
one
> of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
"I do
> marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but
not
> invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
sexual
> intercourse.
> > >
> > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
can
> be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
Stillington
> as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
the
> length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible
and
> heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences'
were
> connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
Judges
> in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
their
> conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to
hold
> the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
more
> than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are,
I
> think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
about
> the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> various observations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
read
> and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And
so,
> from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to
see
> it.
> > >
> > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at
the
> illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
they
> don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
way,
> I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
me to
> look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
the
> book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
excerpts
> which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > >
> > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain
and
> in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
available in
> a kindle format.
> > >
> > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
to
> ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
(I'm
> taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
any
> written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
Acts
> of Parliament?)
> > >
> > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
slightly
> dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard
III
> and his history.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 17:30:59
Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
scenario to work.
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
decision to supplant Edward V?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
>
> Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
told him, despite it not being his place...
>
> But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
as he's clearly done a great deal.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
in
> > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
understanding
> > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
he
> > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
during a
> > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
approached
> > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
(also to
> > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
in
> > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
Commynes
> > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
IIRC,
> > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
something
> > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
Gloucester's
> > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
IV's
> > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
it
> > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
second
> > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
and
> > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
by
> > revealing his first marriage?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
of
> > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
was the
> > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
'missing'
> > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
the
> > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
mood,
> > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > >
> > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
evidence/s
> > for this are :
> > >
> > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
subsequent
> > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
generous
> > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
this
> > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
Richard
> > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
pre-contract.
> > >
> > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
moment
> > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
there at
> > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
revealed it
> > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
allowing
> > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > >
> > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
(although
> > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
so
> > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > >
> > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
Stillington
> > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
him
> > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > >
> > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
not
> > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
chronicler,
> > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
the
> > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
doesn't
> > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
texts.
> > >
> > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
Titulus
> > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > >
> > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
but am
> > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
material
> > in order to see which has more weight.
> > >
> > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
misrepresented
> > Hancock here!)
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
to
> > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
was one
> > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
accepted
> > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
"I do
> > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
but not
> > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
sexual
> > intercourse.
> > > >
> > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
can
> > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
US
> > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
100
> > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
and
> > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
Stillington
> > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
the
> > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
'horrible and
> > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
'offences' were
> > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
Judges
> > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
their
> > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
to hold
> > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
more
> > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
are, I
> > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
about
> > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
and
> > various observations...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
to
> > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
read
> > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
And so,
> > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
to see
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
get
> > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
at the
> > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
tiny
> > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
then
> > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
kindle
> > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
they
> > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
way,
> > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
me to
> > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
the
> > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
excerpts
> > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > >
> > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
from
> > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
contain and
> > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
available in
> > a kindle format.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
of
> > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
to
> > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
(I'm
> > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
any
> > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
Acts
> > of Parliament?)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
slightly
> > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
Richard III
> > and his history.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
scenario to work.
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
decision to supplant Edward V?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
>
> Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
told him, despite it not being his place...
>
> But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
as he's clearly done a great deal.
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
in
> > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
understanding
> > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
he
> > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
during a
> > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
approached
> > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
(also to
> > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
in
> > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
Commynes
> > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
IIRC,
> > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
something
> > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
Gloucester's
> > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
IV's
> > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
it
> > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
second
> > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
and
> > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
by
> > revealing his first marriage?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
of
> > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
was the
> > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
'missing'
> > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
the
> > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
mood,
> > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > >
> > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
evidence/s
> > for this are :
> > >
> > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
subsequent
> > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
generous
> > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
this
> > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
Richard
> > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
pre-contract.
> > >
> > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
moment
> > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
there at
> > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
revealed it
> > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
allowing
> > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > >
> > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
(although
> > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
so
> > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > >
> > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
Stillington
> > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
him
> > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > >
> > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
not
> > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
chronicler,
> > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
the
> > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
doesn't
> > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
texts.
> > >
> > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
Titulus
> > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > >
> > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
but am
> > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
material
> > in order to see which has more weight.
> > >
> > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
misrepresented
> > Hancock here!)
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
to
> > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
was one
> > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
accepted
> > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
"I do
> > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
but not
> > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
sexual
> > intercourse.
> > > >
> > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
can
> > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
US
> > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
100
> > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
and
> > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
Stillington
> > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
the
> > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
'horrible and
> > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
'offences' were
> > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
Judges
> > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
their
> > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
to hold
> > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
more
> > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
are, I
> > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
about
> > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
and
> > various observations...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
to
> > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
read
> > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
And so,
> > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
to see
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
get
> > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
at the
> > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
tiny
> > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
then
> > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
kindle
> > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
they
> > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
way,
> > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
me to
> > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
the
> > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
excerpts
> > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > >
> > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
from
> > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
contain and
> > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
available in
> > a kindle format.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
of
> > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
to
> > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
(I'm
> > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
any
> > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
Acts
> > of Parliament?)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
slightly
> > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
Richard III
> > and his history.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-13 18:36:38
Likewise George V. Although the role of the monarch in the 20th Century was very different from the 15th and 16th.
Richard G
--- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@...> wrote:
> Besides, second son George VI made a fairly good job of it, while
> his elder brother, as far as we can gather under the circumstances,
> did not.
Richard G
--- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@...> wrote:
> Besides, second son George VI made a fairly good job of it, while
> his elder brother, as far as we can gather under the circumstances,
> did not.
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 19:39:27
Yes, sorry! That's one of the problems with trying to precis someone else's hard researched theory on a forum, I didn't mean to imply that the 'gap' was offered up by Hancock as the only evidence of it being Catesby. Joan is quite right with the other observations she's so succinctly made.
I will say though, to be fair to Hancock (since I have perhaps over-simplified his arguments previously) that Annette is right in that he relies quite heavily and regularly on More (a source which I'm not very keen on personally for a plethora of reasons) but he DOES state, several times, that More is not considered the most reliable of reporters on this subject, and he tries (at least in my view, and as someone reading his thesis on it all before any others) to highlight some of the specific problems with More's accounts. The point I'm trying to make is that Hancock doesn't simply accept More's version on its own, quite the opposite in fact, he seems to try at least to ONLY really use More in any 'reliable' sense, if he (More) or his (More's) version is corroborated by other reporters who are perhaps deemed either as more reliable or documentary evidence which can be found from various public records (times, meetings, journeys, which people were likely to have met which other people) etc.
And, of course, as I mentioned in the first post on this subject which I made and which Joan has so well pointed out too, one of the main features of his 'Catesby Theory' is the sudden increase in his land holding, overall social standing and position in life when compared with the others who would seem to be equally culpable thus making an argument (while also using other evidence of course) that Catesby must have done a great deal more than is usually ascribed to him.
But, trying to put Hancock's ideas into a nutshell isn't my forte! I suspect I may just confuse the issue further!
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
I will say though, to be fair to Hancock (since I have perhaps over-simplified his arguments previously) that Annette is right in that he relies quite heavily and regularly on More (a source which I'm not very keen on personally for a plethora of reasons) but he DOES state, several times, that More is not considered the most reliable of reporters on this subject, and he tries (at least in my view, and as someone reading his thesis on it all before any others) to highlight some of the specific problems with More's accounts. The point I'm trying to make is that Hancock doesn't simply accept More's version on its own, quite the opposite in fact, he seems to try at least to ONLY really use More in any 'reliable' sense, if he (More) or his (More's) version is corroborated by other reporters who are perhaps deemed either as more reliable or documentary evidence which can be found from various public records (times, meetings, journeys, which people were likely to have met which other people) etc.
And, of course, as I mentioned in the first post on this subject which I made and which Joan has so well pointed out too, one of the main features of his 'Catesby Theory' is the sudden increase in his land holding, overall social standing and position in life when compared with the others who would seem to be equally culpable thus making an argument (while also using other evidence of course) that Catesby must have done a great deal more than is usually ascribed to him.
But, trying to put Hancock's ideas into a nutshell isn't my forte! I suspect I may just confuse the issue further!
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 19:47:14
I haven't thought of it as the 'come clean' theory before but I'm so glad you wrote that Judy as, I must admit, that this is the idea that I feel appears very likely.
As with everything in life, and just because we are dealing with Kings and suchlike doesn't make this any the less true, I'm more of a believer in the simple answers than the complex and rather out-of-the-way ones.
No doubt with each book I read on the subject, I will be able to form more of a rounded opinion though.
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Joan, the "come clean" theory is the one I favour as well.
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
> Â
> Yes. Along with Elena, I'm not entirely convinced that Hancock proves
> his theory, but I do think that it has merit. One proof of Catesby's
> importance that he uses is how lavishly Richard rewarded Catesby and how
> high Catesby rose in Richard's reign after Hastings' execution. Catesby
> was Hastings' attorney up to that point. My main disagreement with
> Hancock is the precise timing. I do think Hancock backs his theory up
> sufficiently for it to be seriously considered.
>
> Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
> reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
> earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
> to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
> come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having
> spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's
> theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when
> (according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June,
> returning later to execute Hastings?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: joanszechtman
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also
> to
> > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> > revealing his first marriage?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was
> the
> > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > >
> > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > for this are :
> > >
> > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > >
> > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there
> at
> > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed
> it
> > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > >
> > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > >
> > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > >
> > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > >
> > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > >
> > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but
> am
> > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > in order to see which has more weight.
> > >
> > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> > Hancock here!)
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was
> one
> > of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but
> not
> > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > intercourse.
> > > >
> > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible
> and
> > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences'
> were
> > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to
> hold
> > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are,
> I
> > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> > various observations...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And
> so,
> > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to
> see
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at
> the
> > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > >
> > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain
> and
> > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > a kindle format.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > of Parliament?)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard
> III
> > and his history.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
As with everything in life, and just because we are dealing with Kings and suchlike doesn't make this any the less true, I'm more of a believer in the simple answers than the complex and rather out-of-the-way ones.
No doubt with each book I read on the subject, I will be able to form more of a rounded opinion though.
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Joan, the "come clean" theory is the one I favour as well.
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
> Â
> Yes. Along with Elena, I'm not entirely convinced that Hancock proves
> his theory, but I do think that it has merit. One proof of Catesby's
> importance that he uses is how lavishly Richard rewarded Catesby and how
> high Catesby rose in Richard's reign after Hastings' execution. Catesby
> was Hastings' attorney up to that point. My main disagreement with
> Hancock is the precise timing. I do think Hancock backs his theory up
> sufficiently for it to be seriously considered.
>
> Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
> reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
> earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
> to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
> come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having
> spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's
> theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when
> (according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June,
> returning later to execute Hastings?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: joanszechtman
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also
> to
> > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> > revealing his first marriage?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was
> the
> > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > >
> > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > for this are :
> > >
> > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > >
> > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there
> at
> > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed
> it
> > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > >
> > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > >
> > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > >
> > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > >
> > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > >
> > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but
> am
> > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > in order to see which has more weight.
> > >
> > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> > Hancock here!)
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was
> one
> > of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but
> not
> > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > intercourse.
> > > >
> > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible
> and
> > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences'
> were
> > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to
> hold
> > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are,
> I
> > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> > various observations...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And
> so,
> > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to
> see
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at
> the
> > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > >
> > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain
> and
> > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > a kindle format.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > of Parliament?)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard
> III
> > and his history.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
2011-12-13 20:01:19
as long as the book is printed on acid free paper. books that are hundred's of years old are surviving. meanwhile, books that are 75 years old are disintegrating.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 12/12/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
To:
Received: Monday, December 12, 2011, 4:25 AM
Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
All those printers, bookshop keepers, librarians etc thrown into unemployment!
Storing the collective memory on "a cloud" is beyond our control, and makes us powerless.
Artificial intelligence is already here. It is us - we have become the medium and the message, and it is not just the book that is under assault, there is something else being lost as well....
And let us not forget the only safe way to store any written word and ensure it survives is by writing it down using pen and paper.
Paul
On 11 Dec 2011, at 14:15, elena_nuk wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
roslyn
--- On Mon, 12/12/11, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Broad Narrative on Richard for Kindle?
To:
Received: Monday, December 12, 2011, 4:25 AM
Sorry, if I am a bit of a Luddite, mainly because of the security blanket way most people seem to use their cell/mobile phones!
But there is nothing like the smell of books, nor the joy of seeing a bulging bookshelf full of fascinating titles! And the illustrations.
All those printers, bookshop keepers, librarians etc thrown into unemployment!
Storing the collective memory on "a cloud" is beyond our control, and makes us powerless.
Artificial intelligence is already here. It is us - we have become the medium and the message, and it is not just the book that is under assault, there is something else being lost as well....
And let us not forget the only safe way to store any written word and ensure it survives is by writing it down using pen and paper.
Paul
On 11 Dec 2011, at 14:15, elena_nuk wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thank you for approving my membership.
>
> I recently downloaded the Hancock book "Richard III and the murders in the tower" (not about the princes, about Hastings et al) but was disappointed to find that none of the illustrations and tables were included in the Kindle version.
>
> I'm a relatively new Ricardian and am looking for something which is non-biased or, if not unbiased, then at least attempts to rely on actual documentation rather than hearsay and/or pure speculation (and, from a quick look around online, something like this seems difficult to find!) and portrays a wider perspective than just the taking of the throne and its surrounding incidents. I'd like to find something on the 'missing' princes as well but refuse to read the Weir book as it's clearly full of assumptions, suppositions and inaccuracies. I can find quite a few books, including one written by Hancock whom, I believe, runs the Richard III Society, but none seem to be available for Kindle.
>
> Due to visual impairment, I find Kindle books slightly more accessible as I am able to enlarge the print size and illustration size to a point where I can actually see them! I ended up giving up on the Hancock book, despite finding it fascinating, well researched and informative, as none of the accompanying illustrations, graphs or family tress were included and, for someone who is a relative novice with this period of history, the lack of illustrations rendered the book quite difficult to follow.
>
> I wonder if anyone knows of any factual (in so far as is possible - at least, not wholly speculative) books on the 'life and times' of Richard III which are available for a Kindle please? I've requested, via Amazon, a few which are not currently 'Kindled' to be transferred over to Kindle but, thus far, have had no response.
>
> Thank you so much to anyone who may have any ideas and apologies if this question has been asked before.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 20:32:57
A friend of mine likes to say that people quickly jump to "zebras" when the most simple answer is "horses."
If not before, than certainly after Hastings' execution, Catesby, a very ambitious man, might have simply made himself "indispensable" to Richard and Buckingham, as a clever, fast-thinking lawyer who stepped up to fill the need.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: elena_nuk <maia@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
I haven't thought of it as the 'come clean' theory before but I'm so glad you wrote that Judy as, I must admit, that this is the idea that I feel appears very likely.
As with everything in life, and just because we are dealing with Kings and suchlike doesn't make this any the less true, I'm more of a believer in the simple answers than the complex and rather out-of-the-way ones.
No doubt with each book I read on the subject, I will be able to form more of a rounded opinion though.
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Joan, the "come clean" theory is the one I favour as well.
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
> Â
> Yes. Along with Elena, I'm not entirely convinced that Hancock proves
> his theory, but I do think that it has merit. One proof of Catesby's
> importance that he uses is how lavishly Richard rewarded Catesby and how
> high Catesby rose in Richard's reign after Hastings' execution. Catesby
> was Hastings' attorney up to that point. My main disagreement with
> Hancock is the precise timing. I do think Hancock backs his theory up
> sufficiently for it to be seriously considered.
>
> Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
> reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
> earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
> to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
> come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having
> spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's
> theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when
> (according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June,
> returning later to execute Hastings?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: joanszechtman
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also
> to
> > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> > revealing his first marriage?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was
> the
> > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > >
> > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > for this are :
> > >
> > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > >
> > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there
> at
> > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed
> it
> > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > >
> > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > >
> > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > >
> > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > >
> > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > >
> > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but
> am
> > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > in order to see which has more weight.
> > >
> > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> > Hancock here!)
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was
> one
> > of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but
> not
> > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > intercourse.
> > > >
> > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible
> and
> > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences'
> were
> > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to
> hold
> > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are,
> I
> > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> > various observations...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And
> so,
> > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to
> see
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at
> the
> > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > >
> > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain
> and
> > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > a kindle format.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > of Parliament?)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard
> III
> > and his history.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
If not before, than certainly after Hastings' execution, Catesby, a very ambitious man, might have simply made himself "indispensable" to Richard and Buckingham, as a clever, fast-thinking lawyer who stepped up to fill the need.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: elena_nuk <maia@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
I haven't thought of it as the 'come clean' theory before but I'm so glad you wrote that Judy as, I must admit, that this is the idea that I feel appears very likely.
As with everything in life, and just because we are dealing with Kings and suchlike doesn't make this any the less true, I'm more of a believer in the simple answers than the complex and rather out-of-the-way ones.
No doubt with each book I read on the subject, I will be able to form more of a rounded opinion though.
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Joan, the "come clean" theory is the one I favour as well.
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
> Â
> Yes. Along with Elena, I'm not entirely convinced that Hancock proves
> his theory, but I do think that it has merit. One proof of Catesby's
> importance that he uses is how lavishly Richard rewarded Catesby and how
> high Catesby rose in Richard's reign after Hastings' execution. Catesby
> was Hastings' attorney up to that point. My main disagreement with
> Hancock is the precise timing. I do think Hancock backs his theory up
> sufficiently for it to be seriously considered.
>
> Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
> reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
> earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
> to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
> come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure that I came away from "Murder in the Tower" having
> spotted that it was PH's intention to show when Richard first considered
> seeking the crown. Interesting. Do I understand it to be Hancock's
> theory that Richard first considered this option during the break when
> (according to Thomas More) he left the council meeting of 13 June,
> returning later to execute Hastings?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: joanszechtman
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it (also
> to
> > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'. IIRC,
> > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard, something
> > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make it
> > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the second
> > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union, and
> > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure by
> > revealing his first marriage?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was
> the
> > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > >
> > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > for this are :
> > >
> > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > >
> > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment
> > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there
> at
> > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed
> it
> > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > >
> > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although
> > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so
> > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > >
> > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him
> > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > >
> > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > >
> > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > >
> > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but
> am
> > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > in order to see which has more weight.
> > >
> > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented
> > Hancock here!)
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to
> > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was
> one
> > of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted
> > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but
> not
> > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > intercourse.
> > > >
> > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US
> > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100
> > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and
> > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible
> and
> > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences'
> were
> > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to
> hold
> > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are,
> I
> > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and
> > various observations...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to
> > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And
> so,
> > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to
> see
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get
> > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at
> the
> > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny
> > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then
> > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle
> > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > >
> > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from
> > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain
> and
> > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > a kindle format.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of
> > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > of Parliament?)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard
> III
> > and his history.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-13 23:00:10
Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 05:47:46
I am certainly no expert on any of this, but I can't say I found Hancock's
theory at all convincing. The book was fascinating and I was extremely
interested in all the details concerning Catesby's 'rewards', but the book's
conclusions just didn't ring true. Richard must - as with all humanity -
have had many faults, but I do not imagine him as someone given to childish
tantrums. To execute Hastings for that reason and so abruptly - a man who
had basically supported him and whose power could have been used to good
affect in the future - seemed to me to clash with the man of justice and
responsibility that I see Richard as having been. In such a case, Hastings
could simply claim long-term loyalty to Edward, his king and friend.
Richard's understanding of loyalty would surely have pardoned this - even if
reluctantly. A natural anger would be one thing - to rush to execute quite
another.
After all, Catesby could have been rewarded for many things - and perhaps
his understanding of the Eleanor Butler affair was a part of that. But where
do Stanley, Morton and Rotherham really fit in with this? Their place seemed
quite a stretch to me, even allowing for natural assumption. And surely to
extend these sudden punishments to Jane Shore seems particularly childish?
Thomas More's theatrical detail concerning that particular meeting would put
me off believing any of his careful innuendo anyway. Yes, it's all possible
but I don't see it as at all probable and I still think the uncovering of an
ongoing conspiracy (which Morton would certainly have chosen to cover up
when speaking to Thomas More) is a far more likely explanation - proof
having been presented at the time but since lost or destroyed. Assumptions
all of course. But am I missing something?
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of joanszechtman
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 4:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
scenario to work.
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
decision to supplant Edward V?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
>
> Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
told him, despite it not being his place...
>
> But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
as he's clearly done a great deal.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
in
> > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
understanding
> > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
he
> > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
during a
> > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
approached
> > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
(also to
> > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
in
> > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
Commynes
> > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
IIRC,
> > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
something
> > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
Gloucester's
> > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
IV's
> > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
it
> > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
second
> > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
and
> > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
by
> > revealing his first marriage?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
of
> > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
was the
> > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
'missing'
> > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
the
> > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
mood,
> > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > >
> > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
evidence/s
> > for this are :
> > >
> > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
subsequent
> > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
generous
> > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
this
> > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
Richard
> > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
pre-contract.
> > >
> > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
moment
> > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
there at
> > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
revealed it
> > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
allowing
> > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > >
> > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
(although
> > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
so
> > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > >
> > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
Stillington
> > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
him
> > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > >
> > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
not
> > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
chronicler,
> > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
the
> > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
doesn't
> > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
texts.
> > >
> > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
Titulus
> > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > >
> > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
but am
> > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
material
> > in order to see which has more weight.
> > >
> > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
misrepresented
> > Hancock here!)
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
to
> > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
was one
> > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
accepted
> > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
"I do
> > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
but not
> > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
sexual
> > intercourse.
> > > >
> > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
can
> > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
US
> > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
100
> > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
and
> > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
Stillington
> > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
the
> > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
'horrible and
> > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
'offences' were
> > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
Judges
> > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
their
> > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
to hold
> > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
more
> > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
are, I
> > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
about
> > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
and
> > various observations...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
to
> > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
read
> > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
And so,
> > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
to see
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
get
> > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
at the
> > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
tiny
> > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
then
> > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
kindle
> > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
they
> > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
way,
> > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
me to
> > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
the
> > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
excerpts
> > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > >
> > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
from
> > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
contain and
> > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
available in
> > a kindle format.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
of
> > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
to
> > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
(I'm
> > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
any
> > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
Acts
> > of Parliament?)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
slightly
> > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
Richard III
> > and his history.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
theory at all convincing. The book was fascinating and I was extremely
interested in all the details concerning Catesby's 'rewards', but the book's
conclusions just didn't ring true. Richard must - as with all humanity -
have had many faults, but I do not imagine him as someone given to childish
tantrums. To execute Hastings for that reason and so abruptly - a man who
had basically supported him and whose power could have been used to good
affect in the future - seemed to me to clash with the man of justice and
responsibility that I see Richard as having been. In such a case, Hastings
could simply claim long-term loyalty to Edward, his king and friend.
Richard's understanding of loyalty would surely have pardoned this - even if
reluctantly. A natural anger would be one thing - to rush to execute quite
another.
After all, Catesby could have been rewarded for many things - and perhaps
his understanding of the Eleanor Butler affair was a part of that. But where
do Stanley, Morton and Rotherham really fit in with this? Their place seemed
quite a stretch to me, even allowing for natural assumption. And surely to
extend these sudden punishments to Jane Shore seems particularly childish?
Thomas More's theatrical detail concerning that particular meeting would put
me off believing any of his careful innuendo anyway. Yes, it's all possible
but I don't see it as at all probable and I still think the uncovering of an
ongoing conspiracy (which Morton would certainly have chosen to cover up
when speaking to Thomas More) is a far more likely explanation - proof
having been presented at the time but since lost or destroyed. Assumptions
all of course. But am I missing something?
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of joanszechtman
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 4:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
scenario to work.
Joan
---
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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
decision to supplant Edward V?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
>
>
>
> Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
>
> Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
told him, despite it not being his place...
>
> But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
as he's clearly done a great deal.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "joanszechtman"
u2nohoo@ wrote:
> >
> > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
in
> > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
understanding
> > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
he
> > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
during a
> > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
approached
> > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
(also to
> > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer
<http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
in
> > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
Commynes
> > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
IIRC,
> > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
something
> > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
Gloucester's
> > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
IV's
> > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
it
> > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
second
> > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
and
> > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
by
> > revealing his first marriage?
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette,
> > >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
of
> > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
was the
> > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
'missing'
> > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
the
> > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
mood,
> > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > >
> > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
evidence/s
> > for this are :
> > >
> > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
subsequent
> > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
generous
> > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
this
> > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
Richard
> > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
pre-contract.
> > >
> > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
moment
> > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
there at
> > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
revealed it
> > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
allowing
> > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > >
> > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
(although
> > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
so
> > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > >
> > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
Stillington
> > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
him
> > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > >
> > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
not
> > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
chronicler,
> > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
the
> > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
doesn't
> > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
texts.
> > >
> > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
Titulus
> > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > >
> > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
but am
> > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
material
> > in order to see which has more weight.
> > >
> > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
misrepresented
> > Hancock here!)
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > email@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
to
> > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
was one
> > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
accepted
> > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
"I do
> > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
but not
> > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
sexual
> > intercourse.
> > > >
> > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
can
> > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
US
> > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
100
> > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
and
> > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
Stillington
> > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
the
> > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
'horrible and
> > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
'offences' were
> > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
Judges
> > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
their
> > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
to hold
> > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
more
> > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
are, I
> > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
about
> > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
and
> > various observations...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
to
> > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
read
> > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
And so,
> > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
to see
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
get
> > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
at the
> > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
tiny
> > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
then
> > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
kindle
> > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
they
> > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
way,
> > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
me to
> > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
the
> > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
excerpts
> > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > >
> > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
from
> > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
contain and
> > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
available in
> > a kindle format.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
of
> > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
to
> > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
(I'm
> > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
any
> > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
Acts
> > of Parliament?)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
slightly
> > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
Richard III
> > and his history.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 09:05:16
On 14 Dec 2011, at 05:47, barbara wrote:
> I still think the uncovering of an
> ongoing conspiracy (which Morton would certainly have chosen to cover up
> when speaking to Thomas More) is a far more likely explanation - proof
> having been presented at the time but since lost or destroyed.
Totally agree with you on this Barbara. Nothing else fits Richard's character.
Paul
> I still think the uncovering of an
> ongoing conspiracy (which Morton would certainly have chosen to cover up
> when speaking to Thomas More) is a far more likely explanation - proof
> having been presented at the time but since lost or destroyed.
Totally agree with you on this Barbara. Nothing else fits Richard's character.
Paul
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 10:07:52
You're voicing some of my own concerns with Hancock's theory there Barbara!
I think he would argue that the subsequent good treatment of Hastings family shows that Richard III regretted his actions and wanted to somehow 'make it right' (this is not my opinion incidentally, but one of the suggestions put forward in the book) and that, along with a few other things, does make a kind of sense. He talks about the others (Stanley, Morton and Rotherham) as being allowed to live because of their religious status but, from what I can remember offhand, I think that really comes straight from More who makes some similar note in his writings. As I've said, I don't want to give the idea that Hancock takes More's word for anything, but I DO think he picks and chooses a bit with whom he believes or validates. Again, as I said before, I got the feeling in parts of his book, that he wanted to make the evidence fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. I also think he overlooks one of the basic premises of investigation which is that "the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!" That is to say, just because he couldn't find records of certain people having been present at certain meetings, doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't there!
I think his timings are a bit off too - in particular, when he makes somewhat laborious calculations as to how long it would take a postal horse rider to get from A to B and back again.
The sudden execution of Hastings is just odd (my opinion not Hancock's!) and I'm not entirely convinced that there IS any particularly big explanation. Sometimes surely things happen for a culmination of reasons and not just one.
I really can't entirely make my mind up with Hancock. As you say, he HAS done a lot of research but I DO think he is very choosy about which bits of evidence he offers the reader and I've also found, when reading OTHER authors' accounts of the same period of time (council meeting) some quite diametrically opposed things offered up as 'facts'.
I always find Jane Shore (and accounts which include as a central player in these events) a little bit of a red herring. She rather sidetracks the whole issue - why did the public penance thing happen (and it seems pretty sure that it DID) - I don't know! But, more than I don't know, I'm not really convinced it matters much either way (sorry Jane!)
I'm not sure I see Richard III as someone given to sudden outbursts of rage either.
--- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> I am certainly no expert on any of this, but I can't say I found Hancock's
> theory at all convincing. The book was fascinating and I was extremely
> interested in all the details concerning Catesby's 'rewards', but the book's
> conclusions just didn't ring true. Richard must - as with all humanity -
> have had many faults, but I do not imagine him as someone given to childish
> tantrums. To execute Hastings for that reason and so abruptly - a man who
> had basically supported him and whose power could have been used to good
> affect in the future - seemed to me to clash with the man of justice and
> responsibility that I see Richard as having been. In such a case, Hastings
> could simply claim long-term loyalty to Edward, his king and friend.
> Richard's understanding of loyalty would surely have pardoned this - even if
> reluctantly. A natural anger would be one thing - to rush to execute quite
> another.
>
> After all, Catesby could have been rewarded for many things - and perhaps
> his understanding of the Eleanor Butler affair was a part of that. But where
> do Stanley, Morton and Rotherham really fit in with this? Their place seemed
> quite a stretch to me, even allowing for natural assumption. And surely to
> extend these sudden punishments to Jane Shore seems particularly childish?
> Thomas More's theatrical detail concerning that particular meeting would put
> me off believing any of his careful innuendo anyway. Yes, it's all possible
> but I don't see it as at all probable and I still think the uncovering of an
> ongoing conspiracy (which Morton would certainly have chosen to cover up
> when speaking to Thomas More) is a far more likely explanation - proof
> having been presented at the time but since lost or destroyed. Assumptions
> all of course. But am I missing something?
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of joanszechtman
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 4:31 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I think he would argue that the subsequent good treatment of Hastings family shows that Richard III regretted his actions and wanted to somehow 'make it right' (this is not my opinion incidentally, but one of the suggestions put forward in the book) and that, along with a few other things, does make a kind of sense. He talks about the others (Stanley, Morton and Rotherham) as being allowed to live because of their religious status but, from what I can remember offhand, I think that really comes straight from More who makes some similar note in his writings. As I've said, I don't want to give the idea that Hancock takes More's word for anything, but I DO think he picks and chooses a bit with whom he believes or validates. Again, as I said before, I got the feeling in parts of his book, that he wanted to make the evidence fit his conclusion rather than the other way around. I also think he overlooks one of the basic premises of investigation which is that "the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!" That is to say, just because he couldn't find records of certain people having been present at certain meetings, doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't there!
I think his timings are a bit off too - in particular, when he makes somewhat laborious calculations as to how long it would take a postal horse rider to get from A to B and back again.
The sudden execution of Hastings is just odd (my opinion not Hancock's!) and I'm not entirely convinced that there IS any particularly big explanation. Sometimes surely things happen for a culmination of reasons and not just one.
I really can't entirely make my mind up with Hancock. As you say, he HAS done a lot of research but I DO think he is very choosy about which bits of evidence he offers the reader and I've also found, when reading OTHER authors' accounts of the same period of time (council meeting) some quite diametrically opposed things offered up as 'facts'.
I always find Jane Shore (and accounts which include as a central player in these events) a little bit of a red herring. She rather sidetracks the whole issue - why did the public penance thing happen (and it seems pretty sure that it DID) - I don't know! But, more than I don't know, I'm not really convinced it matters much either way (sorry Jane!)
I'm not sure I see Richard III as someone given to sudden outbursts of rage either.
--- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> I am certainly no expert on any of this, but I can't say I found Hancock's
> theory at all convincing. The book was fascinating and I was extremely
> interested in all the details concerning Catesby's 'rewards', but the book's
> conclusions just didn't ring true. Richard must - as with all humanity -
> have had many faults, but I do not imagine him as someone given to childish
> tantrums. To execute Hastings for that reason and so abruptly - a man who
> had basically supported him and whose power could have been used to good
> affect in the future - seemed to me to clash with the man of justice and
> responsibility that I see Richard as having been. In such a case, Hastings
> could simply claim long-term loyalty to Edward, his king and friend.
> Richard's understanding of loyalty would surely have pardoned this - even if
> reluctantly. A natural anger would be one thing - to rush to execute quite
> another.
>
> After all, Catesby could have been rewarded for many things - and perhaps
> his understanding of the Eleanor Butler affair was a part of that. But where
> do Stanley, Morton and Rotherham really fit in with this? Their place seemed
> quite a stretch to me, even allowing for natural assumption. And surely to
> extend these sudden punishments to Jane Shore seems particularly childish?
> Thomas More's theatrical detail concerning that particular meeting would put
> me off believing any of his careful innuendo anyway. Yes, it's all possible
> but I don't see it as at all probable and I still think the uncovering of an
> ongoing conspiracy (which Morton would certainly have chosen to cover up
> when speaking to Thomas More) is a far more likely explanation - proof
> having been presented at the time but since lost or destroyed. Assumptions
> all of course. But am I missing something?
>
> Barbara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of joanszechtman
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 4:31 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 11:22:48
Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
Hope this is helpful
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: day.brian75
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
Hope this is helpful
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: day.brian75
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 13:26:34
P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
Hope this is helpful
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: day.brian75
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
Hope this is helpful
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: day.brian75
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> scenario to work.
>
> Joan
> ---
> 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson"
> <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> decision to supplant Edward V?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: elena_nuk
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> >
> > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> told him, despite it not being his place...
> >
> > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> as he's clearly done a great deal.
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> in
> > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> understanding
> > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> he
> > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> during a
> > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> approached
> > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> (also to
> > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer
> <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> in
> > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> Commynes
> > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> IIRC,
> > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> something
> > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > >
> > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> Gloucester's
> > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> IV's
> > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> it
> > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> second
> > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> and
> > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> by
> > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> of
> > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> was the
> > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> 'missing'
> > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the
> > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> mood,
> > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > >
> > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> evidence/s
> > > for this are :
> > > >
> > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> subsequent
> > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> generous
> > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> this
> > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> Richard
> > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> pre-contract.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> moment
> > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> there at
> > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> revealed it
> > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> allowing
> > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> (although
> > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> so
> > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> Stillington
> > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> him
> > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > >
> > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> not
> > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> chronicler,
> > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> the
> > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> doesn't
> > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> texts.
> > > >
> > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> Titulus
> > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > >
> > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> but am
> > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> material
> > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > >
> > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> misrepresented
> > > Hancock here!)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > email@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> to
> > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> was one
> > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> accepted
> > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> "I do
> > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> but not
> > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> sexual
> > > intercourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> can
> > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> US
> > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> 100
> > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> and
> > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> Stillington
> > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> the
> > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> 'horrible and
> > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> 'offences' were
> > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> Judges
> > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> their
> > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> to hold
> > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> more
> > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> are, I
> > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> about
> > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> and
> > > various observations...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> to
> > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> read
> > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> And so,
> > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> to see
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> get
> > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> at the
> > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> tiny
> > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> then
> > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> kindle
> > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> they
> > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> way,
> > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> me to
> > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> the
> > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> excerpts
> > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> from
> > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> contain and
> > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> available in
> > > a kindle format.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> of
> > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> to
> > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> (I'm
> > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> any
> > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> Acts
> > > of Parliament?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> slightly
> > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> Richard III
> > > and his history.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 17:21:15
Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
>
> Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
>
> Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
>
> Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
>
> The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
>
> Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
>
> Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
>
> Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
>
> Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
>
> Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
>
> Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> Hope this is helpful
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
> Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > scenario to work.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > >
> > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > >
> > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > in
> > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > understanding
> > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > he
> > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > during a
> > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > approached
> > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > (also to
> > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > in
> > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > Commynes
> > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > IIRC,
> > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > something
> > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > Gloucester's
> > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > IV's
> > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > it
> > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > second
> > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > and
> > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > by
> > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > of
> > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > was the
> > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > 'missing'
> > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > the
> > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > mood,
> > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > evidence/s
> > > > for this are :
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > subsequent
> > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > generous
> > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > this
> > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > Richard
> > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > pre-contract.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > moment
> > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > there at
> > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > revealed it
> > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > allowing
> > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > (although
> > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > so
> > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > Stillington
> > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > him
> > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > not
> > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > chronicler,
> > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > the
> > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > doesn't
> > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > texts.
> > > > >
> > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > Titulus
> > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > but am
> > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > material
> > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > >
> > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > misrepresented
> > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > to
> > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > was one
> > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > accepted
> > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > "I do
> > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > but not
> > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > sexual
> > > > intercourse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > can
> > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > US
> > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > 100
> > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > and
> > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > Stillington
> > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > the
> > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > 'horrible and
> > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > 'offences' were
> > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > Judges
> > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > their
> > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > to hold
> > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > more
> > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > are, I
> > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > about
> > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > and
> > > > various observations...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > to
> > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > read
> > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > And so,
> > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > to see
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > get
> > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > at the
> > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > tiny
> > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > then
> > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > kindle
> > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > they
> > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > way,
> > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > me to
> > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > the
> > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > excerpts
> > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > from
> > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > contain and
> > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > available in
> > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > of
> > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > to
> > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > (I'm
> > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > any
> > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > Acts
> > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > slightly
> > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > Richard III
> > > > and his history.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
>
> Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
>
> Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
>
> Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
>
> The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
>
> Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
>
> Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
>
> Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
>
> Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
>
> Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
>
> Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> Hope this is helpful
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
> Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > scenario to work.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > >
> > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > >
> > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > in
> > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > understanding
> > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > he
> > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > during a
> > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > approached
> > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > (also to
> > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > in
> > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > Commynes
> > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > IIRC,
> > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > something
> > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > Gloucester's
> > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > IV's
> > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > it
> > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > second
> > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > and
> > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > by
> > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > of
> > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > was the
> > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > 'missing'
> > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > the
> > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > mood,
> > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > evidence/s
> > > > for this are :
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > subsequent
> > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > generous
> > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > this
> > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > Richard
> > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > pre-contract.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > moment
> > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > there at
> > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > revealed it
> > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > allowing
> > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > (although
> > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > so
> > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > Stillington
> > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > him
> > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > not
> > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > chronicler,
> > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > the
> > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > doesn't
> > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > texts.
> > > > >
> > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > Titulus
> > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > but am
> > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > material
> > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > >
> > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > misrepresented
> > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > to
> > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > was one
> > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > accepted
> > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > "I do
> > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > but not
> > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > sexual
> > > > intercourse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > can
> > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > US
> > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > 100
> > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > and
> > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > Stillington
> > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > the
> > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > 'horrible and
> > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > 'offences' were
> > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > Judges
> > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > their
> > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > to hold
> > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > more
> > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > are, I
> > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > about
> > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > and
> > > > various observations...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > to
> > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > read
> > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > And so,
> > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > to see
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > get
> > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > at the
> > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > tiny
> > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > then
> > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > kindle
> > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > they
> > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > way,
> > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > me to
> > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > the
> > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > excerpts
> > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > from
> > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > contain and
> > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > available in
> > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > of
> > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > to
> > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > (I'm
> > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > any
> > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > Acts
> > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > slightly
> > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > Richard III
> > > > and his history.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 17:28:35
Hi, Brian.
Our dislike of Ms. Weir is based on how she sometimes just changes facts to suit herself. Nothing personal : )
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: day.brian75 <day.brian75@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
>
> Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
>
> Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
>
> Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
>
> The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
>
> Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
>
> Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
>
> Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
>
> Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
>
> Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
>
> Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> Hope this is helpful
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
> Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > scenario to work.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > >
> > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > >
> > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > in
> > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > understanding
> > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > he
> > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > during a
> > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > approached
> > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > (also to
> > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > in
> > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > Commynes
> > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > IIRC,
> > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > something
> > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > Gloucester's
> > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > IV's
> > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > it
> > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > second
> > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > and
> > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > by
> > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > of
> > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > was the
> > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > 'missing'
> > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > the
> > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > mood,
> > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > evidence/s
> > > > for this are :
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > subsequent
> > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > generous
> > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > this
> > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > Richard
> > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > pre-contract.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > moment
> > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > there at
> > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > revealed it
> > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > allowing
> > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > (although
> > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > so
> > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > Stillington
> > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > him
> > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > not
> > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > chronicler,
> > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > the
> > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > doesn't
> > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > texts.
> > > > >
> > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > Titulus
> > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > but am
> > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > material
> > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > >
> > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > misrepresented
> > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > to
> > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > was one
> > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > accepted
> > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > "I do
> > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > but not
> > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > sexual
> > > > intercourse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > can
> > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > US
> > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > 100
> > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > and
> > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > Stillington
> > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > the
> > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > 'horrible and
> > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > 'offences' were
> > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > Judges
> > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > their
> > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > to hold
> > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > more
> > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > are, I
> > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > about
> > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > and
> > > > various observations...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > to
> > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > read
> > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > And so,
> > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > to see
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > get
> > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > at the
> > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > tiny
> > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > then
> > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > kindle
> > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > they
> > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > way,
> > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > me to
> > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > the
> > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > excerpts
> > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > from
> > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > contain and
> > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > available in
> > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > of
> > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > to
> > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > (I'm
> > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > any
> > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > Acts
> > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > slightly
> > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > Richard III
> > > > and his history.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Our dislike of Ms. Weir is based on how she sometimes just changes facts to suit herself. Nothing personal : )
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: day.brian75 <day.brian75@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
>
> Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
>
> Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
>
> Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
>
> The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
>
> Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
>
> Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
>
> Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
>
> Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
>
> Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
>
> Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> Hope this is helpful
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
> Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > scenario to work.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > >
> > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > >
> > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > in
> > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > understanding
> > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > he
> > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > during a
> > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > approached
> > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > (also to
> > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > in
> > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > Commynes
> > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > IIRC,
> > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > something
> > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > Gloucester's
> > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > IV's
> > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > it
> > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > second
> > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > and
> > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > by
> > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > of
> > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > was the
> > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > 'missing'
> > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > the
> > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > mood,
> > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > evidence/s
> > > > for this are :
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > subsequent
> > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > generous
> > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > this
> > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > Richard
> > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > pre-contract.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > moment
> > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > there at
> > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > revealed it
> > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > allowing
> > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > (although
> > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > so
> > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > Stillington
> > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > him
> > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > not
> > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > chronicler,
> > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > the
> > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > doesn't
> > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > texts.
> > > > >
> > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > Titulus
> > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > but am
> > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > material
> > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > >
> > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > misrepresented
> > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > to
> > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > was one
> > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > accepted
> > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > "I do
> > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > but not
> > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > sexual
> > > > intercourse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > can
> > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > US
> > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > 100
> > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > and
> > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > Stillington
> > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > the
> > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > 'horrible and
> > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > 'offences' were
> > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > Judges
> > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > their
> > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > to hold
> > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > more
> > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > are, I
> > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > about
> > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > and
> > > > various observations...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > to
> > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > read
> > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > And so,
> > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > to see
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > get
> > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > at the
> > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > tiny
> > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > then
> > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > kindle
> > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > they
> > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > way,
> > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > me to
> > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > the
> > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > excerpts
> > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > from
> > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > contain and
> > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > available in
> > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > of
> > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > to
> > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > (I'm
> > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > any
> > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > Acts
> > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > slightly
> > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > Richard III
> > > > and his history.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 18:42:36
Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian, or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed, or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely, very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an opposing path to Richard?
2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9 June?
3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings rather than merely arrest and detain him?
5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some of whom were not even present at the meeting?
6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's family, and free all the others unharmed?
Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would be interesting to hear what you think.
Best regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: day.brian75
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
>
> Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
>
> Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
>
> Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
>
> The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
>
> Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
>
> Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
>
> Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
>
> Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
>
> Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
>
> Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> Hope this is helpful
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
> Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > scenario to work.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > >
> > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > >
> > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > in
> > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > understanding
> > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > he
> > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > during a
> > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > approached
> > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > (also to
> > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > in
> > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > Commynes
> > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > IIRC,
> > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > something
> > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > Gloucester's
> > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > IV's
> > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > it
> > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > second
> > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > and
> > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > by
> > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > of
> > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > was the
> > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > 'missing'
> > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > the
> > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > mood,
> > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > evidence/s
> > > > for this are :
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > subsequent
> > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > generous
> > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > this
> > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > Richard
> > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > pre-contract.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > moment
> > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > there at
> > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > revealed it
> > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > allowing
> > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > (although
> > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > so
> > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > Stillington
> > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > him
> > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > not
> > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > chronicler,
> > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > the
> > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > doesn't
> > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > texts.
> > > > >
> > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > Titulus
> > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > but am
> > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > material
> > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > >
> > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > misrepresented
> > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > to
> > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > was one
> > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > accepted
> > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > "I do
> > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > but not
> > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > sexual
> > > > intercourse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > can
> > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > US
> > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > 100
> > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > and
> > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > Stillington
> > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > the
> > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > 'horrible and
> > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > 'offences' were
> > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > Judges
> > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > their
> > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > to hold
> > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > more
> > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > are, I
> > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > about
> > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > and
> > > > various observations...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > to
> > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > read
> > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > And so,
> > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > to see
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > get
> > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > at the
> > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > tiny
> > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > then
> > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > kindle
> > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > they
> > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > way,
> > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > me to
> > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > the
> > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > excerpts
> > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > from
> > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > contain and
> > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > available in
> > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > of
> > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > to
> > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > (I'm
> > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > any
> > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > Acts
> > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > slightly
> > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > Richard III
> > > > and his history.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed, or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely, very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an opposing path to Richard?
2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9 June?
3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings rather than merely arrest and detain him?
5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some of whom were not even present at the meeting?
6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's family, and free all the others unharmed?
Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would be interesting to hear what you think.
Best regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: day.brian75
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Annette Carson
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
>
> Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
>
> Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
>
> Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
>
> The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
>
> Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
>
> Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
>
> Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
>
> Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
>
> Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
>
> Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> Hope this is helpful
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
> Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
>
> --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > scenario to work.
> >
> > Joan
> > ---
> > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > ebooks at Smashwords
> > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: elena_nuk
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > >
> > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > >
> > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > in
> > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > understanding
> > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > he
> > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > during a
> > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > approached
> > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > (also to
> > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > in
> > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > Commynes
> > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > IIRC,
> > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > something
> > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > Gloucester's
> > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > IV's
> > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > it
> > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > second
> > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > and
> > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > by
> > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > of
> > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > was the
> > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > 'missing'
> > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > the
> > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > mood,
> > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > evidence/s
> > > > for this are :
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > subsequent
> > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > generous
> > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > this
> > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > Richard
> > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > pre-contract.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > moment
> > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > there at
> > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > revealed it
> > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > allowing
> > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > (although
> > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > so
> > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > Stillington
> > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > him
> > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > not
> > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > chronicler,
> > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > the
> > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > doesn't
> > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > texts.
> > > > >
> > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > Titulus
> > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > but am
> > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > material
> > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > >
> > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > misrepresented
> > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > to
> > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > was one
> > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > accepted
> > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > "I do
> > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > but not
> > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > sexual
> > > > intercourse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > can
> > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > US
> > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > 100
> > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > and
> > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > Stillington
> > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > the
> > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > 'horrible and
> > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > 'offences' were
> > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > Judges
> > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > their
> > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > to hold
> > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > more
> > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > are, I
> > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > about
> > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > and
> > > > various observations...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > to
> > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > read
> > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > And so,
> > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > to see
> > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > get
> > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > at the
> > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > tiny
> > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > then
> > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > kindle
> > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > they
> > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > way,
> > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > me to
> > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > the
> > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > excerpts
> > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > from
> > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > contain and
> > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > available in
> > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > of
> > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > to
> > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > (I'm
> > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > any
> > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > Acts
> > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > slightly
> > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > Richard III
> > > > and his history.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-14 19:26:55
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "barbaragd@"
> <barbaragd@> wrote:
> >
> > Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common
> with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers
> originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially
> brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
Henry VIII, maybe, but the comparison doesn't work with Edward IV. He had an elder brother, yes, but that brother (Henry) died in infancy, leaving Edward the de facto heir to the Duke of York. But since York was never King and probably never expected to be, Edward's expectations can hardly be compared to those of Henry VII's second son.
Kay
>
> --- In , "barbaragd@"
> <barbaragd@> wrote:
> >
> > Edward IV - and then Henry VIII whose behaviour had much in common
> with his grandfather's - were both second sons with elder brothers
> originally expected to inherit the throne. Does not being initially
> brought up as a prospective monarch offer any excuse? Probably not.
Henry VIII, maybe, but the comparison doesn't work with Edward IV. He had an elder brother, yes, but that brother (Henry) died in infancy, leaving Edward the de facto heir to the Duke of York. But since York was never King and probably never expected to be, Edward's expectations can hardly be compared to those of Henry VII's second son.
Kay
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-14 19:29:48
--- In , "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...> wrote:
>
> There was a television court room drama of which you can get a transcript The Trial of Richard III by Richard Drewett & Mark Redhead (Sutton, 1984) (ISBN 978-0862991982)
> An excellent read, very fair to all parties.
I think there has been more than one. If this is the one I remember, from the late 70s or early 80s, Richard was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
In that version there was the delightful detail of an actor who rather resembled the best-known portrait of Richard, wearing period costume, seated at the defense table and conferring with his lawyers.
Kay
>
> There was a television court room drama of which you can get a transcript The Trial of Richard III by Richard Drewett & Mark Redhead (Sutton, 1984) (ISBN 978-0862991982)
> An excellent read, very fair to all parties.
I think there has been more than one. If this is the one I remember, from the late 70s or early 80s, Richard was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
In that version there was the delightful detail of an actor who rather resembled the best-known portrait of Richard, wearing period costume, seated at the defense table and conferring with his lawyers.
Kay
Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
2011-12-14 19:34:26
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> That is extremely kind of you, thank you so much. I shall definitely take you up on that and I hope I'm not being too tiresome to the group with my somewhat endless questions!
Not to speak for Annette, but as far as I'm concerned, all questions are worthwhile. Even if the subject has been covered before, as most have, new thoughts and new evidence crops up from time to time, plus I think it's useful to re-examine the old evidence from time to time. You never know what a different angle or a fresh look will provide.
Kay
>
> That is extremely kind of you, thank you so much. I shall definitely take you up on that and I hope I'm not being too tiresome to the group with my somewhat endless questions!
Not to speak for Annette, but as far as I'm concerned, all questions are worthwhile. Even if the subject has been covered before, as most have, new thoughts and new evidence crops up from time to time, plus I think it's useful to re-examine the old evidence from time to time. You never know what a different angle or a fresh look will provide.
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 19:49:23
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the Bishop of Ely.
(The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual, I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold rage.
Kay
Kay
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the Bishop of Ely.
(The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual, I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold rage.
Kay
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 19:56:40
--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
> reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
> earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
> to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
> come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
>
> Joan
That Richard gave Hasting a chance to explain himself or say something during the hiatus in the council meeting is interesting, but is there any evidence? Hastings was present at the meeting, but did he leave the chamber during the time Richard was absent? I don't recall anything that would suggest that he left it and could have met privately with Richard, but I don't have the account at hand.
Kay
>
> Assuming Hancock's theory is correct regarding the players and Richard's
> reaction, I think that Catesby would have had to informed Richard
> earlier and for Richard to have sufficiently confirmed the information
> to have split the council meeting and to have given Hastings a chance to
> come clean by taking a break in the meeting.
>
> Joan
That Richard gave Hasting a chance to explain himself or say something during the hiatus in the council meeting is interesting, but is there any evidence? Hastings was present at the meeting, but did he leave the chamber during the time Richard was absent? I don't recall anything that would suggest that he left it and could have met privately with Richard, but I don't have the account at hand.
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 20:01:05
If you believe Thomas More, of course!
----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the Bishop of Ely.
(The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual, I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold rage.
Kay
Kay
----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the Bishop of Ely.
(The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual, I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold rage.
Kay
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 20:01:37
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> I will say though, to be fair to Hancock (since I have perhaps over-simplified his arguments previously) that Annette is right in that he relies quite heavily and regularly on More (a source which I'm not very keen on personally for a plethora of reasons) but he DOES state, several times, that More is not considered the most reliable of reporters on this subject, and he tries (at least in my view, and as someone reading his thesis on it all before any others) to highlight some of the specific problems with More's accounts. The point I'm trying to make is that Hancock doesn't simply accept More's version on its own, quite the opposite in fact, he seems to try at least to ONLY really use More in any 'reliable' sense, if he (More) or his (More's) version is corroborated by other reporters who are perhaps deemed either as more reliable or documentary evidence which can be found from various public records (times, meetings, journeys, which people were likely to have met which other people) etc.
>
The main problem with More's account of anything involving Richard's reign is that More cannot have had first-hand knowledge of any of it. He was only five years old. More obviously got his information from another source, and that source is almost surely John Morton, who was there during the events More describes. More was a protogee and ardent admirer of Morton and lived in his house for a number of years. When More speaks, you can see Morton's lips moving.
Kay
>
> I will say though, to be fair to Hancock (since I have perhaps over-simplified his arguments previously) that Annette is right in that he relies quite heavily and regularly on More (a source which I'm not very keen on personally for a plethora of reasons) but he DOES state, several times, that More is not considered the most reliable of reporters on this subject, and he tries (at least in my view, and as someone reading his thesis on it all before any others) to highlight some of the specific problems with More's accounts. The point I'm trying to make is that Hancock doesn't simply accept More's version on its own, quite the opposite in fact, he seems to try at least to ONLY really use More in any 'reliable' sense, if he (More) or his (More's) version is corroborated by other reporters who are perhaps deemed either as more reliable or documentary evidence which can be found from various public records (times, meetings, journeys, which people were likely to have met which other people) etc.
>
The main problem with More's account of anything involving Richard's reign is that More cannot have had first-hand knowledge of any of it. He was only five years old. More obviously got his information from another source, and that source is almost surely John Morton, who was there during the events More describes. More was a protogee and ardent admirer of Morton and lived in his house for a number of years. When More speaks, you can see Morton's lips moving.
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 20:03:14
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> A friend of mine likes to say that people quickly jump to "zebras" when the most simple answer is "horses."Â
>
Ah yes, Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the best one. But sometimes not.
Kay
>
> A friend of mine likes to say that people quickly jump to "zebras" when the most simple answer is "horses."Â
>
Ah yes, Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the best one. But sometimes not.
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 20:05:04
Quite right, there's every likelihood that Thomas More based his "Richard III" on material gleaned from John Morton. Which is why I ask again, would you believe what John Morton, through Thomas More, said about Richard III?
----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> I will say though, to be fair to Hancock (since I have perhaps over-simplified his arguments previously) that Annette is right in that he relies quite heavily and regularly on More (a source which I'm not very keen on personally for a plethora of reasons) but he DOES state, several times, that More is not considered the most reliable of reporters on this subject, and he tries (at least in my view, and as someone reading his thesis on it all before any others) to highlight some of the specific problems with More's accounts. The point I'm trying to make is that Hancock doesn't simply accept More's version on its own, quite the opposite in fact, he seems to try at least to ONLY really use More in any 'reliable' sense, if he (More) or his (More's) version is corroborated by other reporters who are perhaps deemed either as more reliable or documentary evidence which can be found from various public records (times, meetings, journeys, which people were likely to have met which other people) etc.
>
The main problem with More's account of anything involving Richard's reign is that More cannot have had first-hand knowledge of any of it. He was only five years old. More obviously got his information from another source, and that source is almost surely John Morton, who was there during the events More describes. More was a protogee and ardent admirer of Morton and lived in his house for a number of years. When More speaks, you can see Morton's lips moving.
Kay
----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> I will say though, to be fair to Hancock (since I have perhaps over-simplified his arguments previously) that Annette is right in that he relies quite heavily and regularly on More (a source which I'm not very keen on personally for a plethora of reasons) but he DOES state, several times, that More is not considered the most reliable of reporters on this subject, and he tries (at least in my view, and as someone reading his thesis on it all before any others) to highlight some of the specific problems with More's accounts. The point I'm trying to make is that Hancock doesn't simply accept More's version on its own, quite the opposite in fact, he seems to try at least to ONLY really use More in any 'reliable' sense, if he (More) or his (More's) version is corroborated by other reporters who are perhaps deemed either as more reliable or documentary evidence which can be found from various public records (times, meetings, journeys, which people were likely to have met which other people) etc.
>
The main problem with More's account of anything involving Richard's reign is that More cannot have had first-hand knowledge of any of it. He was only five years old. More obviously got his information from another source, and that source is almost surely John Morton, who was there during the events More describes. More was a protogee and ardent admirer of Morton and lived in his house for a number of years. When More speaks, you can see Morton's lips moving.
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 20:14:04
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Quite right, there's every likelihood that Thomas More based his "Richard III" on material gleaned from John Morton. Which is why I ask again, would you believe what John Morton, through Thomas More, said about Richard III?
Certainly not.
Another little tidbit that interests me about this whole affair: after Hastings' execution, the Duke of Buckingham took on Hastings' entire staff and retinue. And he shipped them all off to his (Buckingham's) holdings in Wales and the Welsh marches, far far from London. I see that as a way of preventing them from talking, and that they knew something that Buckingham wanted hushed up.
And them Buckingham gets custody of Morton, and Morton somehow slips away. Hater it when that happens.
Kay
>
> Quite right, there's every likelihood that Thomas More based his "Richard III" on material gleaned from John Morton. Which is why I ask again, would you believe what John Morton, through Thomas More, said about Richard III?
Certainly not.
Another little tidbit that interests me about this whole affair: after Hastings' execution, the Duke of Buckingham took on Hastings' entire staff and retinue. And he shipped them all off to his (Buckingham's) holdings in Wales and the Welsh marches, far far from London. I see that as a way of preventing them from talking, and that they knew something that Buckingham wanted hushed up.
And them Buckingham gets custody of Morton, and Morton somehow slips away. Hater it when that happens.
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-14 21:18:34
Harry was for Harry from Day 1.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Quite right, there's every likelihood that Thomas More based his "Richard III" on material gleaned from John Morton. Which is why I ask again, would you believe what John Morton, through Thomas More, said about Richard III?
Certainly not.
Another little tidbit that interests me about this whole affair: after Hastings' execution, the Duke of Buckingham took on Hastings' entire staff and retinue. And he shipped them all off to his (Buckingham's) holdings in Wales and the Welsh marches, far far from London. I see that as a way of preventing them from talking, and that they knew something that Buckingham wanted hushed up.
And them Buckingham gets custody of Morton, and Morton somehow slips away. Hater it when that happens.
Kay
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Quite right, there's every likelihood that Thomas More based his "Richard III" on material gleaned from John Morton. Which is why I ask again, would you believe what John Morton, through Thomas More, said about Richard III?
Certainly not.
Another little tidbit that interests me about this whole affair: after Hastings' execution, the Duke of Buckingham took on Hastings' entire staff and retinue. And he shipped them all off to his (Buckingham's) holdings in Wales and the Welsh marches, far far from London. I see that as a way of preventing them from talking, and that they knew something that Buckingham wanted hushed up.
And them Buckingham gets custody of Morton, and Morton somehow slips away. Hater it when that happens.
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 01:25:12
each level of nobility had a right to wear a crown. strawberry leaves signified a duke. i personaly think the comment about bishop ely's stawberries may be a code. unravel that code, and you may find the answer to why the council meeting was interrupted.
did anyone significant use strawberries as part of their coat of arms?
roslyn
--- On Wed, 12/14/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 2:49 PM
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the Bishop of Ely.
(The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual, I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold rage.
Kay
Kay
did anyone significant use strawberries as part of their coat of arms?
roslyn
--- On Wed, 12/14/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 2:49 PM
--- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Annette,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the Bishop of Ely.
(The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual, I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold rage.
Kay
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 01:53:57
addendum..from wikipedia. i took a short cut. i know i have info in my files somewhere.
In the peerages of the United Kingdom, the design of a coronet shows the rank of its owner, as in German, French and various other heraldic traditions.
The coronet of a duke (a silver-gilt circlet, chased as jewelled but not actually gemmed) has eight strawberry leaves of which five are seen in two-dimensional representations;
that of a marquess has four strawberry leaves and four silver balls (known as "pearls", but not actually pearls), slightly raised on points above the rim, of which three leaves and two balls are seen;
that of an earl has eight strawberry leaves (four visible) and eight "pearls" raised on stalks, of which five are visible;
i have been following this supposition for few years. i don't know if i ever deliniated who might be a source that r3 may have heard from. but, if such a person exists..aka the bishop's strawberries..it may provide clues as to who informed on who in that council meeting.
yes, i know that more is not the most reliable source. but there is a possiblility there is something to the strawberry story, just as there might be something to the withered arm. i personally think richard was so upset that he had a minor stroke.
remember woodville, beaufort and shore were all accused of witchcraft at this same meeting..and morton too, if i correctly recall.
in richard's era, a witchcraft accusation could often be used a political tool.
and once again, does anyone have access to pearl kibre's "lewis of caerleon" book? caerleon, if you recall was the dr. of beaufort and woodville was used to carry messages between the women during woodville's stint in "sanctuary".
roslyn
--- On Wed, 12/14/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 8:25 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> each level of nobility had a right to wear a
> crown. strawberry leaves signified a duke. i personaly think
> the comment about bishop ely's stawberries may be a
> code. unravel that code, and you may find the answer to why
> the council meeting was interrupted.
>
>
>
> did anyone significant use strawberries as part of their
> coat of arms?
>
>
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Wed, 12/14/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington
> Vs Catesby.
>
> To:
>
> Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 2:49 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In ,
> "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi Annette,
>
> >
>
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I
> have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that
> Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this
> information to Richard III during the 'missing' half
> hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned
> in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode
> occurred.
>
>
>
> It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to
> happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council
> meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for
> strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the
> Bishop of Ely.
>
>
>
> (The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John
> Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I
> think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual,
> I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at
> the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and
> were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for
> strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message
> to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that
> he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was
> plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
>
>
>
> At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned
> to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold
> rage.
>
>
>
> Kay
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In the peerages of the United Kingdom, the design of a coronet shows the rank of its owner, as in German, French and various other heraldic traditions.
The coronet of a duke (a silver-gilt circlet, chased as jewelled but not actually gemmed) has eight strawberry leaves of which five are seen in two-dimensional representations;
that of a marquess has four strawberry leaves and four silver balls (known as "pearls", but not actually pearls), slightly raised on points above the rim, of which three leaves and two balls are seen;
that of an earl has eight strawberry leaves (four visible) and eight "pearls" raised on stalks, of which five are visible;
i have been following this supposition for few years. i don't know if i ever deliniated who might be a source that r3 may have heard from. but, if such a person exists..aka the bishop's strawberries..it may provide clues as to who informed on who in that council meeting.
yes, i know that more is not the most reliable source. but there is a possiblility there is something to the strawberry story, just as there might be something to the withered arm. i personally think richard was so upset that he had a minor stroke.
remember woodville, beaufort and shore were all accused of witchcraft at this same meeting..and morton too, if i correctly recall.
in richard's era, a witchcraft accusation could often be used a political tool.
and once again, does anyone have access to pearl kibre's "lewis of caerleon" book? caerleon, if you recall was the dr. of beaufort and woodville was used to carry messages between the women during woodville's stint in "sanctuary".
roslyn
--- On Wed, 12/14/11, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 8:25 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> each level of nobility had a right to wear a
> crown. strawberry leaves signified a duke. i personaly think
> the comment about bishop ely's stawberries may be a
> code. unravel that code, and you may find the answer to why
> the council meeting was interrupted.
>
>
>
> did anyone significant use strawberries as part of their
> coat of arms?
>
>
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Wed, 12/14/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington
> Vs Catesby.
>
> To:
>
> Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 2:49 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In ,
> "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi Annette,
>
> >
>
> > Thanks very much for this information. From what I
> have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that
> Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this
> information to Richard III during the 'missing' half
> hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned
> in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode
> occurred.
>
>
>
> It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to
> happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council
> meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for
> strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the
> Bishop of Ely.
>
>
>
> (The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John
> Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I
> think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual,
> I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at
> the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and
> were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for
> strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message
> to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that
> he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was
> plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
>
>
>
> At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned
> to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold
> rage.
>
>
>
> Kay
>
> Kay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 05:50:11
I love the idea of code. In his talk at the 2008 AGM, Hancock also
referred to the "withered arm" and brought up the point that it might
have been a metaphor for a flank of Richard's army. It is on record that
he had sent for reinforcements, but that they had yet to arrive.
From what I understand (going from memory which isn't as reliable as I'd
like it to be) Hastings had the largest armed forces at his immediate
disposal and Richard had been informed that Hastings had plotted with
Woodville, Rotherham, Morton, et. al. So he might well have felt an
immediate threat to his life from Hastings. Leaving the precontract out
of the equation, let's suppose that Hastings denies having plotted
against Richard, but Richard had proof from Catesby that Hastings was
conspiring to remove Richard from his position as protector and then
either kill or throw Richard in a dungeon and lose the key. Faced with
this peril, Richard moves quickly and executes Hastings before Hastings
can round up his men.
After Hastings was executed, Catesby was no longer employed, so he may
have gone to Richard then and offered up the precontract as at that
point he had the protector's ear and gratitude.
So when Morton related the June 13th incident to More, he could have
told half truths, conveniently leaving out the pesky details that would
have presented Richard in a more reasonable light.
Joan
---
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> addendum..from wikipedia. i took a short cut. i know i have info in my
files somewhere.
>
> In the peerages of the United Kingdom, the design of a coronet shows
the rank of its owner, as in German, French and various other heraldic
traditions.
> The coronet of a duke (a silver-gilt circlet, chased as jewelled but
not actually gemmed) has eight strawberry leaves of which five are seen
in two-dimensional representations;
> that of a marquess has four strawberry leaves and four silver balls
(known as "pearls", but not actually pearls), slightly raised on points
above the rim, of which three leaves and two balls are seen;
> that of an earl has eight strawberry leaves (four visible) and eight
"pearls" raised on stalks, of which five are visible;
>
> i have been following this supposition for few years. i don't know if
i ever deliniated who might be a source that r3 may have heard from.
but, if such a person exists..aka the bishop's strawberries..it may
provide clues as to who informed on who in that council meeting.
>
> yes, i know that more is not the most reliable source. but there is a
possiblility there is something to the strawberry story, just as there
might be something to the withered arm. i personally think richard was
so upset that he had a minor stroke.
>
> remember woodville, beaufort and shore were all accused of witchcraft
at this same meeting..and morton too, if i correctly recall.
>
> in richard's era, a witchcraft accusation could often be used a
political tool.
>
> and once again, does anyone have access to pearl kibre's "lewis of
caerleon" book? caerleon, if you recall was the dr. of beaufort and
woodville was used to carry messages between the women during
woodville's stint in "sanctuary".
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Wed, 12/14/11, fayre rose fayreroze@... wrote:
>
> > From: fayre rose fayreroze@...
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
> > To:
> > Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 8:25 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > each level of nobility had a right to wear a
> > crown. strawberry leaves signified a duke. i personaly think
> > the comment about bishop ely's stawberries may be a
> > code. unravel that code, and you may find the answer to why
> > the council meeting was interrupted.
> >
> >
> >
> > did anyone significant use strawberries as part of their
> > coat of arms?
> >
> > Â
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Wed, 12/14/11, oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington
> > Vs Catesby.
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 2:49 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> > "elena_nuk" maia@ wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Hi Annette,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I
> > have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that
> > Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this
> > information to Richard III during the 'missing' half
> > hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned
> > in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode
> > occurred.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to
> > happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council
> > meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for
> > strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the
> > Bishop of Ely.
> >
> >
> >
> > (The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John
> > Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I
> > think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual,
> > I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at
> > the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and
> > were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for
> > strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message
> > to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that
> > he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was
> > plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
> >
> >
> >
> > At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned
> > to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold
> > rage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kay
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
referred to the "withered arm" and brought up the point that it might
have been a metaphor for a flank of Richard's army. It is on record that
he had sent for reinforcements, but that they had yet to arrive.
From what I understand (going from memory which isn't as reliable as I'd
like it to be) Hastings had the largest armed forces at his immediate
disposal and Richard had been informed that Hastings had plotted with
Woodville, Rotherham, Morton, et. al. So he might well have felt an
immediate threat to his life from Hastings. Leaving the precontract out
of the equation, let's suppose that Hastings denies having plotted
against Richard, but Richard had proof from Catesby that Hastings was
conspiring to remove Richard from his position as protector and then
either kill or throw Richard in a dungeon and lose the key. Faced with
this peril, Richard moves quickly and executes Hastings before Hastings
can round up his men.
After Hastings was executed, Catesby was no longer employed, so he may
have gone to Richard then and offered up the precontract as at that
point he had the protector's ear and gratitude.
So when Morton related the June 13th incident to More, he could have
told half truths, conveniently leaving out the pesky details that would
have presented Richard in a more reasonable light.
Joan
---
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> addendum..from wikipedia. i took a short cut. i know i have info in my
files somewhere.
>
> In the peerages of the United Kingdom, the design of a coronet shows
the rank of its owner, as in German, French and various other heraldic
traditions.
> The coronet of a duke (a silver-gilt circlet, chased as jewelled but
not actually gemmed) has eight strawberry leaves of which five are seen
in two-dimensional representations;
> that of a marquess has four strawberry leaves and four silver balls
(known as "pearls", but not actually pearls), slightly raised on points
above the rim, of which three leaves and two balls are seen;
> that of an earl has eight strawberry leaves (four visible) and eight
"pearls" raised on stalks, of which five are visible;
>
> i have been following this supposition for few years. i don't know if
i ever deliniated who might be a source that r3 may have heard from.
but, if such a person exists..aka the bishop's strawberries..it may
provide clues as to who informed on who in that council meeting.
>
> yes, i know that more is not the most reliable source. but there is a
possiblility there is something to the strawberry story, just as there
might be something to the withered arm. i personally think richard was
so upset that he had a minor stroke.
>
> remember woodville, beaufort and shore were all accused of witchcraft
at this same meeting..and morton too, if i correctly recall.
>
> in richard's era, a witchcraft accusation could often be used a
political tool.
>
> and once again, does anyone have access to pearl kibre's "lewis of
caerleon" book? caerleon, if you recall was the dr. of beaufort and
woodville was used to carry messages between the women during
woodville's stint in "sanctuary".
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Wed, 12/14/11, fayre rose fayreroze@... wrote:
>
> > From: fayre rose fayreroze@...
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
Catesby.
> > To:
> > Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 8:25 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > each level of nobility had a right to wear a
> > crown. strawberry leaves signified a duke. i personaly think
> > the comment about bishop ely's stawberries may be a
> > code. unravel that code, and you may find the answer to why
> > the council meeting was interrupted.
> >
> >
> >
> > did anyone significant use strawberries as part of their
> > coat of arms?
> >
> > Â
> >
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Wed, 12/14/11, oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> >
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington
> > Vs Catesby.
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Received: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 2:49 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> > "elena_nuk" maia@ wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Hi Annette,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I
> > have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that
> > Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this
> > information to Richard III during the 'missing' half
> > hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned
> > in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode
> > occurred.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to
> > happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council
> > meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for
> > strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the
> > Bishop of Ely.
> >
> >
> >
> > (The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John
> > Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I
> > think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual,
> > I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at
> > the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and
> > were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for
> > strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message
> > to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that
> > he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was
> > plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
> >
> >
> >
> > At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned
> > to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold
> > rage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kay
> >
> > Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 10:44:18
This entire story only comes from More Katy, don't forget that, so who is to believe it ramtic as it sounds?
Paul
On 14 Dec 2011, at 19:49, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Annette,
>>
>> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
>
>
> It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the Bishop of Ely.
>
> (The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual, I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
>
> At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold rage.
>
> Kay
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Paul
On 14 Dec 2011, at 19:49, oregon_katy wrote:
>
>
> --- In , "elena_nuk" <maia@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Annette,
>>
>> Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
>
>
> It is also clear that Richard was expecting something to happen -- information to come to him? -- during that council meeting. He walked in late, then stalled around, asking for strawberries to be brought from the famous garden of the Bishop of Ely.
>
> (The Bishop of Ely was, of course, the ubiquitous John Morton. This entire tale stars John Morton, which is why I think it came from his lips, if not his pen. As usual, I'm full of questions. Were strawberries in season at the time? Were they grown in the garden of Ely Palace and were they especially delicious? Was Richard just asking for strawberries, or was he sending some sort of veiled message to Morton by singling him out like that? Was he saying that he knew what Morton's garden was famous for, and it was plots and schemes, not tasty fruit?)
>
> At any rate, Richard left the council chamber and returned to it in a totally different mood. I'd call it a cold rage.
>
> Kay
> Kay
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 10:45:07
On 14 Dec 2011, at 20:01, oregon_katy wrote:
> When More speaks, you can see Morton's lips moving.
And we all know what a loyal and trustworthy man Morton was, don't we?
Paul
> When More speaks, you can see Morton's lips moving.
And we all know what a loyal and trustworthy man Morton was, don't we?
Paul
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 12:07:08
i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
Reference: L1/79
Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
Scope and Content
Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
and
Reference: L1/85
Creation dates: [1468]
Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
Scope and Content
Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
Endorsements:
4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
Datum die
quarto Junij Ed: quarti
post conquestum octavo
i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
(i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
roslyn
--- On Mon, 12/12/11, elena_nuk <maia@...> wrote:
From: elena_nuk <maia@...>
Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Monday, December 12, 2011, 5:36 PM
Hi Annette,
Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s for this are :
(1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
(2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
(3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
(4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
(5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler, or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political' motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
(6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material in order to see which has more weight.
(please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented Hancock here!)
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... ! Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual intercourse.
>
> The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100 percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this
is no more than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
Reference: L1/79
Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
Scope and Content
Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
and
Reference: L1/85
Creation dates: [1468]
Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
Scope and Content
Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
Endorsements:
4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
Datum die
quarto Junij Ed: quarti
post conquestum octavo
i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
(i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
roslyn
--- On Mon, 12/12/11, elena_nuk <maia@...> wrote:
From: elena_nuk <maia@...>
Subject: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Monday, December 12, 2011, 5:36 PM
Hi Annette,
Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered of Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington was the person who revealed this information to Richard III during the 'missing' half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower, the one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul mood, shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting evidence/s for this are :
(1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased subsequent to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how generous Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that this implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to Richard than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the pre-contract.
(2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular moment to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been there at the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have revealed it as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than allowing plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
(3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while (although late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was so furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
(4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that Stillington 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked him (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
(5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm not sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second chronicler, or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges the problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political' motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he doesn't use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting texts.
(6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the Titulus Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make but am still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source material in order to see which has more weight.
(please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or misrepresented Hancock here!)
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... ! Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it was one of those important family business arrangements. The Church accepted marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other "I do marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections), but not invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had sexual intercourse.
>
> The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor can be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the US Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as 100 percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s, and also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert Stillington as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded the length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified 'horrible and heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these 'offences' were connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and Judges in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius, their conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused to hold the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this
is no more than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians are, I think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew about the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elena_nuk
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV and various observations...
>
>
>
> Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything to replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access, read and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading. And so, from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
>
> Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love to see it.
>
> I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to get hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked at the illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather tiny anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and then shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the kindle version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps they don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either way, I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like me to look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying the book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those excerpts which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
>
> I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books from the library, really to see just how many illustrations they contain and in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them available in a kindle format.
>
> I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version of the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and to ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV (I'm taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is any written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any Acts of Parliament?)
>
> Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly slightly dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding Richard III and his history.
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 15:41:08
Hi Annette;
I'm having a little trouble navigating this forum, so once and a while I miss a reply. Thanks again for the insight. Although nobility like Richard expected to have power over others as a birth-given right, they got religated to lesser positions if they were unpredictable, incomatent lunies. Government couldn't function at all with idiot insubordinate idiots in control of large portions of it, like the entire north of England for instance. Richard's previous history seems to have been that of a stern, but fair and compatent ruler in the North. The iradic behavior of his after the sudden death of his brother doesn't make sense on the scanty, biased, historical accounts available. Even the moves that Richard made in his short rein after the boys dissapeared in the Tower, although drastic reactions to immediate emergencies, seem to have been relatively rational and well within the boundries of the powers of a king. Yes, he had a foolish daliance with his neice, a caniving, lusty, young woman from a family with a history of similar stratagies to power. But ultimately he dropped the affair. things were escalating to a bad political situation at the time and dumping her was probably a good idea, but he was king then and he could do what he wanted.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian, or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
>
> However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed, or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
>
> There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely, very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
>
> Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
> 1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
> 2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an opposing path to Richard?
> 2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9 June?
> 3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
> 4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings rather than merely arrest and detain him?
> 5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some of whom were not even present at the meeting?
> 6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's family, and free all the others unharmed?
>
> Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would be interesting to hear what you think.
> Best regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Annette Carson
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
> >
> > Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
> >
> > Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
> >
> > Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
> >
> > The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
> >
> > Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
> >
> > Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
> >
> > Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
> >
> > Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
> >
> > Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
> >
> > Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> > Hope this is helpful
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: day.brian75
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> > Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > > scenario to work.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > > >
> > > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > > >
> > > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > > in
> > > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > > understanding
> > > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > > he
> > > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > > during a
> > > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > > approached
> > > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > > (also to
> > > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > > in
> > > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > > Commynes
> > > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > > IIRC,
> > > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > > something
> > > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > > Gloucester's
> > > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > > IV's
> > > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > > it
> > > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > > second
> > > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > > and
> > > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > > by
> > > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > Catesby.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > > of
> > > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > > was the
> > > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > > 'missing'
> > > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > > the
> > > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > > mood,
> > > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > > evidence/s
> > > > > for this are :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > > subsequent
> > > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > > generous
> > > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > > this
> > > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > > Richard
> > > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > > pre-contract.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > > moment
> > > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > > there at
> > > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > > revealed it
> > > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > > allowing
> > > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > > (although
> > > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > > so
> > > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > > Stillington
> > > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > > him
> > > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > > not
> > > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > > chronicler,
> > > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > > the
> > > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > > doesn't
> > > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > > texts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > > Titulus
> > > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > > but am
> > > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > > material
> > > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > > misrepresented
> > > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > > to
> > > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > > was one
> > > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > > accepted
> > > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > > "I do
> > > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > > but not
> > > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > > sexual
> > > > > intercourse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > > can
> > > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > > US
> > > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > > 100
> > > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > > and
> > > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > > Stillington
> > > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > > the
> > > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > > 'horrible and
> > > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > > 'offences' were
> > > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > > Judges
> > > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > > their
> > > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > > to hold
> > > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > > more
> > > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > > are, I
> > > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > > about
> > > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > > and
> > > > > various observations...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > > to
> > > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > > read
> > > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > > And so,
> > > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > > to see
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > > get
> > > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > > at the
> > > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > > tiny
> > > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > > then
> > > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > > kindle
> > > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > > they
> > > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > > way,
> > > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > > me to
> > > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > > the
> > > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > > excerpts
> > > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > > from
> > > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > > contain and
> > > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > > available in
> > > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > > of
> > > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > > to
> > > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > > (I'm
> > > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > > any
> > > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > > Acts
> > > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > > slightly
> > > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > > Richard III
> > > > > and his history.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I'm having a little trouble navigating this forum, so once and a while I miss a reply. Thanks again for the insight. Although nobility like Richard expected to have power over others as a birth-given right, they got religated to lesser positions if they were unpredictable, incomatent lunies. Government couldn't function at all with idiot insubordinate idiots in control of large portions of it, like the entire north of England for instance. Richard's previous history seems to have been that of a stern, but fair and compatent ruler in the North. The iradic behavior of his after the sudden death of his brother doesn't make sense on the scanty, biased, historical accounts available. Even the moves that Richard made in his short rein after the boys dissapeared in the Tower, although drastic reactions to immediate emergencies, seem to have been relatively rational and well within the boundries of the powers of a king. Yes, he had a foolish daliance with his neice, a caniving, lusty, young woman from a family with a history of similar stratagies to power. But ultimately he dropped the affair. things were escalating to a bad political situation at the time and dumping her was probably a good idea, but he was king then and he could do what he wanted.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian, or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
>
> However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed, or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
>
> There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely, very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
>
> Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
> 1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
> 2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an opposing path to Richard?
> 2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9 June?
> 3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
> 4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings rather than merely arrest and detain him?
> 5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some of whom were not even present at the meeting?
> 6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's family, and free all the others unharmed?
>
> Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would be interesting to hear what you think.
> Best regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Annette Carson
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
> >
> > Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
> >
> > Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
> >
> > Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
> >
> > The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
> >
> > Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
> >
> > Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
> >
> > Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
> >
> > Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
> >
> > Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
> >
> > Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> > Hope this is helpful
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: day.brian75
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> > Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > > scenario to work.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > > >
> > > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > > >
> > > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > > in
> > > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > > understanding
> > > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > > he
> > > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > > during a
> > > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > > approached
> > > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > > (also to
> > > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > > in
> > > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > > Commynes
> > > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > > IIRC,
> > > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > > something
> > > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > > Gloucester's
> > > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > > IV's
> > > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > > it
> > > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > > second
> > > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > > and
> > > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > > by
> > > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > Catesby.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > > of
> > > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > > was the
> > > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > > 'missing'
> > > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > > the
> > > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > > mood,
> > > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > > evidence/s
> > > > > for this are :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > > subsequent
> > > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > > generous
> > > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > > this
> > > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > > Richard
> > > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > > pre-contract.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > > moment
> > > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > > there at
> > > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > > revealed it
> > > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > > allowing
> > > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > > (although
> > > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > > so
> > > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > > Stillington
> > > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > > him
> > > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > > not
> > > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > > chronicler,
> > > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > > the
> > > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > > doesn't
> > > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > > texts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > > Titulus
> > > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > > but am
> > > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > > material
> > > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > > misrepresented
> > > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > > to
> > > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > > was one
> > > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > > accepted
> > > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > > "I do
> > > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > > but not
> > > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > > sexual
> > > > > intercourse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > > can
> > > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > > US
> > > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > > 100
> > > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > > and
> > > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > > Stillington
> > > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > > the
> > > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > > 'horrible and
> > > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > > 'offences' were
> > > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > > Judges
> > > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > > their
> > > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > > to hold
> > > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > > more
> > > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > > are, I
> > > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > > about
> > > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > > and
> > > > > various observations...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > > to
> > > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > > read
> > > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > > And so,
> > > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > > to see
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > > get
> > > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > > at the
> > > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > > tiny
> > > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > > then
> > > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > > kindle
> > > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > > they
> > > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > > way,
> > > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > > me to
> > > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > > the
> > > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > > excerpts
> > > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > > from
> > > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > > contain and
> > > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > > available in
> > > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > > of
> > > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > > to
> > > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > > (I'm
> > > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > > any
> > > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > > Acts
> > > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > > slightly
> > > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > > Richard III
> > > > > and his history.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 16:01:59
wrong. richard did not have a daliance with his neice, elizabeth of york. it appears she had and infatuattion of him, and the rumours flowed, very likely fanned by the woodville ambitions.
at the time of the rumours richard, via ambassadors was arranging her marriage and his with portuguese royalty or was it spanish. no doubt someone on the forum can provide the exact details.
roslyn
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, day.brian75 <day.brian75@...> wrote:
From: day.brian75 <day.brian75@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 10:41 AM
Hi Annette;
I'm having a little trouble navigating this forum, so once and a while I miss a reply. Thanks again for the insight. Although nobility like Richard expected to have power over others as a birth-given right, they got religated to lesser positions if they were unpredictable, incomatent lunies. Government couldn't function at all with idiot insubordinate idiots in control of large portions of it, like the entire north of England for instance. Richard's previous history seems to have been that of a stern, but fair and compatent ruler in the North. The iradic behavior of his after the sudden death of his brother doesn't make sense on the scanty, biased, historical accounts available. Even the moves that Richard made in his short rein after the boys dissapeared in the Tower, although drastic reactions to immediate emergencies, seem to have been relatively rational and well within the boundries of the powers of a king. Yes, he had a foolish daliance with his
neice, a caniving, lusty, young woman from a family with a history of similar stratagies to power. But ultimately he dropped the affair. things were escalating to a bad political situation at the time and dumping her was probably a good idea, but he was king then and he could do what he wanted.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian, or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
>
> However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed, or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
>
> There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely, very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
>
> Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
> 1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
> 2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an opposing path to Richard?
> 2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9 June?
> 3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
> 4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings rather than merely arrest and detain him?
> 5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some of whom were not even present at the meeting?
> 6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's family, and free all the others unharmed?
>
> Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would be interesting to hear what you think.
> Best regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Annette Carson
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
> >
> > Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
> >
> > Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
> >
> > Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
> >
> > The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
> >
> > Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
> >
> > Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
> >
> > Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
> >
> > Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
> >
> > Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
> >
> > Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> > Hope this is helpful
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: day.brian75
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> > Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > > scenario to work.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > > >
> > > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > > >
> > > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > > in
> > > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > > understanding
> > > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > > he
> > > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > > during a
> > > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > > approached
> > > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > > (also to
> > > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > > in
> > > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > > Commynes
> > > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > > IIRC,
> > > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > > something
> > > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > > Gloucester's
> > > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > > IV's
> > > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > > it
> > > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > > second
> > > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > > and
> > > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > > by
> > > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > Catesby.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > > of
> > > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > > was the
> > > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > > 'missing'
> > > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > > the
> > > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > > mood,
> > > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > > evidence/s
> > > > > for this are :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > > subsequent
> > > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > > generous
> > > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > > this
> > > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > > Richard
> > > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > > pre-contract.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > > moment
> > > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > > there at
> > > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > > revealed it
> > > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > > allowing
> > > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > > (although
> > > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > > so
> > > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > > Stillington
> > > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > > him
> > > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > > not
> > > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > > chronicler,
> > > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > > the
> > > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > > doesn't
> > > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > > texts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > > Titulus
> > > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > > but am
> > > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > > material
> > > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > > misrepresented
> > > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > > to
> > > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > > was one
> > > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > > accepted
> > > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > > "I do
> > > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > > but not
> > > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > > sexual
> > > > > intercourse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > > can
> > > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > > US
> > > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > > 100
> > > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > > and
> > > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > > Stillington
> > > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > > the
> > > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > > 'horrible and
> > > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > > 'offences' were
> > > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > > Judges
> > > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > > their
> > > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > > to hold
> > > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > > more
> > > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > > are, I
> > > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > > about
> > > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > > and
> > > > > various observations...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > > to
> > > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > > read
> > > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > > And so,
> > > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > > to see
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > > get
> > > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > > at the
> > > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > > tiny
> > > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > > then
> > > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > > kindle
> > > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > > they
> > > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > > way,
> > > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > > me to
> > > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > > the
> > > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > > excerpts
> > > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > > from
> > > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > > contain and
> > > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > > available in
> > > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > > of
> > > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > > to
> > > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > > (I'm
> > > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > > any
> > > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > > Acts
> > > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > > slightly
> > > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > > Richard III
> > > > > and his history.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
at the time of the rumours richard, via ambassadors was arranging her marriage and his with portuguese royalty or was it spanish. no doubt someone on the forum can provide the exact details.
roslyn
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, day.brian75 <day.brian75@...> wrote:
From: day.brian75 <day.brian75@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 10:41 AM
Hi Annette;
I'm having a little trouble navigating this forum, so once and a while I miss a reply. Thanks again for the insight. Although nobility like Richard expected to have power over others as a birth-given right, they got religated to lesser positions if they were unpredictable, incomatent lunies. Government couldn't function at all with idiot insubordinate idiots in control of large portions of it, like the entire north of England for instance. Richard's previous history seems to have been that of a stern, but fair and compatent ruler in the North. The iradic behavior of his after the sudden death of his brother doesn't make sense on the scanty, biased, historical accounts available. Even the moves that Richard made in his short rein after the boys dissapeared in the Tower, although drastic reactions to immediate emergencies, seem to have been relatively rational and well within the boundries of the powers of a king. Yes, he had a foolish daliance with his
neice, a caniving, lusty, young woman from a family with a history of similar stratagies to power. But ultimately he dropped the affair. things were escalating to a bad political situation at the time and dumping her was probably a good idea, but he was king then and he could do what he wanted.
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian, or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
>
> However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed, or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
>
> There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely, very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
>
> Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
> 1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
> 2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an opposing path to Richard?
> 2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9 June?
> 3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
> 4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings rather than merely arrest and detain him?
> 5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some of whom were not even present at the meeting?
> 6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's family, and free all the others unharmed?
>
> Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would be interesting to hear what you think.
> Best regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: day.brian75
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
>
>
> Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Annette Carson
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
> >
> > Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
> >
> > Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
> >
> > Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
> >
> > The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
> >
> > Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
> >
> > Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
> >
> > Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
> >
> > Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
> >
> > Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
> >
> > Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> > Hope this is helpful
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: day.brian75
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> > Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
> >
> > --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > > scenario to work.
> > >
> > > Joan
> > > ---
> > > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > Catesby.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > > >
> > > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > > >
> > > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > > in
> > > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > > understanding
> > > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > > he
> > > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > > during a
> > > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > > approached
> > > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > > (also to
> > > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > > >
> > > > > Joan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > > in
> > > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > > Commynes
> > > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > > IIRC,
> > > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > > something
> > > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > > Gloucester's
> > > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > > IV's
> > > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > > it
> > > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > > second
> > > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > > and
> > > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > > by
> > > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > Catesby.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > > of
> > > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > > was the
> > > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > > 'missing'
> > > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > > the
> > > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > > mood,
> > > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > > evidence/s
> > > > > for this are :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > > subsequent
> > > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > > generous
> > > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > > this
> > > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > > Richard
> > > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > > pre-contract.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > > moment
> > > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > > there at
> > > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > > revealed it
> > > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > > allowing
> > > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > > (although
> > > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > > so
> > > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > > Stillington
> > > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > > him
> > > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > > not
> > > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > > chronicler,
> > > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > > the
> > > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > > doesn't
> > > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > > texts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > > Titulus
> > > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > > but am
> > > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > > material
> > > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > > misrepresented
> > > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > > to
> > > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > > was one
> > > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > > accepted
> > > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > > "I do
> > > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > > but not
> > > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > > sexual
> > > > > intercourse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > > can
> > > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > > US
> > > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > > 100
> > > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > > and
> > > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > > Stillington
> > > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > > the
> > > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > > 'horrible and
> > > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > > 'offences' were
> > > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > > Judges
> > > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > > their
> > > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > > to hold
> > > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > > more
> > > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > > are, I
> > > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > > about
> > > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > > and
> > > > > various observations...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > > to
> > > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > > read
> > > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > > And so,
> > > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > > to see
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > > get
> > > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > > at the
> > > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > > tiny
> > > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > > then
> > > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > > kindle
> > > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > > they
> > > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > > way,
> > > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > > me to
> > > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > > the
> > > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > > excerpts
> > > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > > from
> > > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > > contain and
> > > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > > available in
> > > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > > of
> > > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > > to
> > > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > > (I'm
> > > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > > any
> > > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > > Acts
> > > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > > slightly
> > > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > > Richard III
> > > > > and his history.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 16:16:02
Hi Roslyn and all - The Brooklyn contingent is happy to toss in two cents:
It was Portugal, the infanta Joana of Portugal, sister of Joao II of
Portugal, and daughter of Afonso V ("El Africano"). Joana, born in
February 1452 was regent of Portugal during the African expedition of her
father and brother. Her heart was set on the religious life and she
turned down several marriage offers, including Richard's. Legend has it
that she had dreamed Richard was dead; she told her father that if Richard
was alive, she'd give in and marry; if not, her father should allow her to
follow her own path. Lo and behold, it was 1485 and Richard was killed;
whereupon Joana retired to the convent at Aveiro, where she died in 1490.
She was beatified but not canonized.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:01 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> wrong. richard did not have a daliance with his neice, elizabeth of york.
> it appears she had and infatuattion of him, and the rumours flowed, very
> likely fanned by the woodville ambitions.
>
> at the time of the rumours richard, via ambassadors was arranging her
> marriage and his with portuguese royalty or was it spanish. no doubt
> someone on the forum can provide the exact details.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, day.brian75 <day.brian75@...> wrote:
>
> From: day.brian75 <day.brian75@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 10:41 AM
>
>
>
>
> Hi Annette;
> I'm having a little trouble navigating this forum, so once and a while I
> miss a reply. Thanks again for the insight. Although nobility like Richard
> expected to have power over others as a birth-given right, they got
> religated to lesser positions if they were unpredictable, incomatent
> lunies. Government couldn't function at all with idiot insubordinate idiots
> in control of large portions of it, like the entire north of England for
> instance. Richard's previous history seems to have been that of a stern,
> but fair and compatent ruler in the North. The iradic behavior of his after
> the sudden death of his brother doesn't make sense on the scanty, biased,
> historical accounts available. Even the moves that Richard made in his
> short rein after the boys dissapeared in the Tower, although drastic
> reactions to immediate emergencies, seem to have been relatively rational
> and well within the boundries of the powers of a king. Yes, he had a
> foolish daliance with his
> neice, a caniving, lusty, young woman from a family with a history of
> similar stratagies to power. But ultimately he dropped the affair. things
> were escalating to a bad political situation at the time and dumping her
> was probably a good idea, but he was king then and he could do what he
> wanted.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare
> bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian,
> or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so
> little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and
> More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They
> all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one
> of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way
> towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
> >
> > However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that
> stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are
> believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed,
> or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you
> will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison
> Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how
> credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
> >
> > There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you
> decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are
> forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts
> Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It
> involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham
> and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an
> understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own
> character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic
> to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about
> Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely,
> very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known
> tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future
> behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
> >
> > Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's
> wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
> > 1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
> > 2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an
> opposing path to Richard?
> > 2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9
> June?
> > 3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
> > 4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings
> rather than merely arrest and detain him?
> > 5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some
> of whom were not even present at the meeting?
> > 6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen
> if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's
> family, and free all the others unharmed?
> >
> > Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my
> book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll
> have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different
> views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've
> considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would
> be interesting to hear what you think.
> > Best regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: day.brian75
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was
> hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from
> Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some
> evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have
> mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for
> this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum
> and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of
> favor, but it does not sound that way.
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I
> mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies
> Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more
> well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about
> details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And,
> of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously
> objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Annette Carson
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a
> good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone,
> as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
> > >
> > > Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's
> protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for
> Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major
> council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which
> 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a
> meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the
> ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in
> Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters
> in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him
> (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and
> affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's
> council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at
> the Tower of London.
> > >
> > > Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of
> this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail
> that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by
> Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of
> plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
> > >
> > > Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this
> detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version
> (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting
> at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham
> (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying
> an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down'
> Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To
> quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had
> been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh,
> I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that
> Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's
> houses.
> > >
> > > The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended
> the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority.
> Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilý
> tout!
> > >
> > > Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think
> there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane
> Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All
> those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
> > >
> > > Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the
> fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned
> Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded
> forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate
> 'was deserved, as it is said'.
> > >
> > > Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract
> had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr
> Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take
> deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward
> IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have
> the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is
> unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of
> every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of
> Edward IV's sons.
> > >
> > > Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which
> culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at
> Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard
> asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the
> case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set
> out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys
> were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady
> Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this
> petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
> > >
> > > Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary
> evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
> > >
> > > Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put
> forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to
> assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this
> effect.
> > > Hope this is helpful
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: day.brian75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > > Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am
> researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why
> Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting
> and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first
> clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > > > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put
> under
> > > > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > > > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join
> my
> > > > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > > > scenario to work.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer <
> http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > > > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > > > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From
> your
> > > > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether
> it's
> > > > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > > > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > > > >
> > > > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > > > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see
> how
> > > > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual
> source
> > > > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it.
> But,
> > > > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > > > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would
> have
> > > > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > > > >
> > > > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > > > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you
> believe
> > > > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > > > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > > > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > > > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > > > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and
> then on
> > > > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that
> the
> > > > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to
> the
> > > > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all
> Hancock's
> > > > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the
> feeling
> > > > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and
> so
> > > > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on!
> But
> > > > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research
> involved
> > > > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > > > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008
> AGM
> > > > in
> > > > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > > > understanding
> > > > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first
> considered
> > > > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector.
> So
> > > > he
> > > > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > > > during a
> > > > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > > > approached
> > > > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > > > (also to
> > > > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > > > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's
> "Murder
> > > > in
> > > > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby
> the
> > > > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede
> that
> > > > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > > > Commynes
> > > > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > > > IIRC,
> > > > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > > > something
> > > > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > > > Gloucester's
> > > > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > > > IV's
> > > > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > > > it
> > > > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > > > second
> > > > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > > > and
> > > > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > > > by
> > > > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > > Catesby.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have
> gathered
> > > > of
> > > > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > > > was the
> > > > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > > > 'missing'
> > > > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > > > the
> > > > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a
> foul
> > > > mood,
> > > > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > > > evidence/s
> > > > > > for this are :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > > > subsequent
> > > > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > > > generous
> > > > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests
> that
> > > > this
> > > > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > > > pre-contract.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > > > moment
> > > > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > > > there at
> > > > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > > > revealed it
> > > > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > > > allowing
> > > > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > > > (although
> > > > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > > > so
> > > > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > > > Stillington
> > > > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > > > him
> > > > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > > > chronicler,
> > > > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > > > the
> > > > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > > > texts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > > > Titulus
> > > > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > > > but am
> > > > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > > > material
> > > > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > > > misrepresented
> > > > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Annette
> Carson"
> > > > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > > > to
> > > > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > > > was one
> > > > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > > > accepted
> > > > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each
> other
> > > > "I do
> > > > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > > > but not
> > > > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > > > sexual
> > > > > > intercourse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and
> Eleanor
> > > > can
> > > > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > > > US
> > > > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > > > 100
> > > > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > > > and
> > > > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > > > Stillington
> > > > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > > > the
> > > > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came
> to
> > > > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > > > 'horrible and
> > > > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > > > 'offences' were
> > > > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > > > Judges
> > > > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > > > their
> > > > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > > > to hold
> > > > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > > > more
> > > > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > > > are, I
> > > > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > > > about
> > > > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > > > and
> > > > > > various observations...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > > > to
> > > > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to
> access,
> > > > read
> > > > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > > > And so,
> > > > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > > > to see
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > > > get
> > > > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > > > at the
> > > > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > > > tiny
> > > > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > > > then
> > > > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > > > kindle
> > > > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > > > they
> > > > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > > > way,
> > > > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would
> like
> > > > me to
> > > > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > > > the
> > > > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > > > excerpts
> > > > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > > > from
> > > > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > > > contain and
> > > > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > > > available in
> > > > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > > > of
> > > > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be)
> and
> > > > to
> > > > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found
> to
> > > > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > > > (I'm
> > > > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > > > any
> > > > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of
> any
> > > > Acts
> > > > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both
> my
> > > > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > > > slightly
> > > > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > > > Richard III
> > > > > > and his history.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
It was Portugal, the infanta Joana of Portugal, sister of Joao II of
Portugal, and daughter of Afonso V ("El Africano"). Joana, born in
February 1452 was regent of Portugal during the African expedition of her
father and brother. Her heart was set on the religious life and she
turned down several marriage offers, including Richard's. Legend has it
that she had dreamed Richard was dead; she told her father that if Richard
was alive, she'd give in and marry; if not, her father should allow her to
follow her own path. Lo and behold, it was 1485 and Richard was killed;
whereupon Joana retired to the convent at Aveiro, where she died in 1490.
She was beatified but not canonized.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:01 AM, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> wrong. richard did not have a daliance with his neice, elizabeth of york.
> it appears she had and infatuattion of him, and the rumours flowed, very
> likely fanned by the woodville ambitions.
>
> at the time of the rumours richard, via ambassadors was arranging her
> marriage and his with portuguese royalty or was it spanish. no doubt
> someone on the forum can provide the exact details.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, day.brian75 <day.brian75@...> wrote:
>
> From: day.brian75 <day.brian75@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 10:41 AM
>
>
>
>
> Hi Annette;
> I'm having a little trouble navigating this forum, so once and a while I
> miss a reply. Thanks again for the insight. Although nobility like Richard
> expected to have power over others as a birth-given right, they got
> religated to lesser positions if they were unpredictable, incomatent
> lunies. Government couldn't function at all with idiot insubordinate idiots
> in control of large portions of it, like the entire north of England for
> instance. Richard's previous history seems to have been that of a stern,
> but fair and compatent ruler in the North. The iradic behavior of his after
> the sudden death of his brother doesn't make sense on the scanty, biased,
> historical accounts available. Even the moves that Richard made in his
> short rein after the boys dissapeared in the Tower, although drastic
> reactions to immediate emergencies, seem to have been relatively rational
> and well within the boundries of the powers of a king. Yes, he had a
> foolish daliance with his
> neice, a caniving, lusty, young woman from a family with a history of
> similar stratagies to power. But ultimately he dropped the affair. things
> were escalating to a bad political situation at the time and dumping her
> was probably a good idea, but he was king then and he could do what he
> wanted.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare
> bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian,
> or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so
> little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and
> More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They
> all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one
> of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way
> towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
> >
> > However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that
> stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are
> believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed,
> or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you
> will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison
> Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how
> credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
> >
> > There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you
> decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are
> forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts
> Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It
> involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham
> and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an
> understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own
> character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic
> to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about
> Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely,
> very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known
> tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future
> behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
> >
> > Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's
> wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
> > 1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
> > 2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an
> opposing path to Richard?
> > 2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9
> June?
> > 3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
> > 4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings
> rather than merely arrest and detain him?
> > 5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some
> of whom were not even present at the meeting?
> > 6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen
> if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's
> family, and free all the others unharmed?
> >
> > Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my
> book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll
> have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different
> views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've
> considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would
> be interesting to hear what you think.
> > Best regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: day.brian75
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was
> hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from
> Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some
> evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have
> mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for
> this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum
> and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of
> favor, but it does not sound that way.
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I
> mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies
> Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more
> well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about
> details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And,
> of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously
> objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Annette Carson
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a
> good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone,
> as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
> > >
> > > Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's
> protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for
> Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major
> council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which
> 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a
> meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the
> ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in
> Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters
> in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him
> (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and
> affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's
> council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at
> the Tower of London.
> > >
> > > Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of
> this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail
> that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by
> Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of
> plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
> > >
> > > Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this
> detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version
> (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting
> at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham
> (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying
> an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down'
> Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To
> quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had
> been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh,
> I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that
> Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's
> houses.
> > >
> > > The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended
> the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority.
> Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilý
> tout!
> > >
> > > Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think
> there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane
> Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All
> those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
> > >
> > > Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the
> fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned
> Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded
> forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate
> 'was deserved, as it is said'.
> > >
> > > Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract
> had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr
> Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take
> deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward
> IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have
> the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is
> unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of
> every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of
> Edward IV's sons.
> > >
> > > Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which
> culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at
> Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard
> asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the
> case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set
> out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys
> were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady
> Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this
> petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
> > >
> > > Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary
> evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
> > >
> > > Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put
> forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to
> assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this
> effect.
> > > Hope this is helpful
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: day.brian75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > > Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am
> researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why
> Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting
> and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first
> clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > > > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put
> under
> > > > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > > > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join
> my
> > > > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > > > scenario to work.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer <
> http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > > > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > > > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From
> your
> > > > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether
> it's
> > > > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > > > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > > > >
> > > > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > > > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see
> how
> > > > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual
> source
> > > > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it.
> But,
> > > > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > > > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would
> have
> > > > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > > > >
> > > > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > > > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you
> believe
> > > > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > > > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > > > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > > > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > > > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and
> then on
> > > > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that
> the
> > > > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to
> the
> > > > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all
> Hancock's
> > > > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the
> feeling
> > > > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and
> so
> > > > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on!
> But
> > > > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research
> involved
> > > > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > > > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008
> AGM
> > > > in
> > > > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > > > understanding
> > > > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first
> considered
> > > > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector.
> So
> > > > he
> > > > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > > > during a
> > > > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > > > approached
> > > > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > > > (also to
> > > > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > > > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's
> "Murder
> > > > in
> > > > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby
> the
> > > > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede
> that
> > > > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > > > Commynes
> > > > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > > > IIRC,
> > > > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > > > something
> > > > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > > > Gloucester's
> > > > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > > > IV's
> > > > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > > > it
> > > > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > > > second
> > > > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > > > and
> > > > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > > > by
> > > > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > > Catesby.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have
> gathered
> > > > of
> > > > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > > > was the
> > > > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > > > 'missing'
> > > > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > > > the
> > > > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a
> foul
> > > > mood,
> > > > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > > > evidence/s
> > > > > > for this are :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > > > subsequent
> > > > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > > > generous
> > > > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests
> that
> > > > this
> > > > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > > > pre-contract.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > > > moment
> > > > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > > > there at
> > > > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > > > revealed it
> > > > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > > > allowing
> > > > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > > > (although
> > > > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > > > so
> > > > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > > > Stillington
> > > > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > > > him
> > > > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > > > chronicler,
> > > > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > > > the
> > > > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > > > texts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > > > Titulus
> > > > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > > > but am
> > > > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > > > material
> > > > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > > > misrepresented
> > > > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Annette
> Carson"
> > > > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > > > to
> > > > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > > > was one
> > > > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > > > accepted
> > > > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each
> other
> > > > "I do
> > > > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > > > but not
> > > > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > > > sexual
> > > > > > intercourse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and
> Eleanor
> > > > can
> > > > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > > > US
> > > > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > > > 100
> > > > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > > > and
> > > > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > > > Stillington
> > > > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > > > the
> > > > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came
> to
> > > > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > > > 'horrible and
> > > > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > > > 'offences' were
> > > > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > > > Judges
> > > > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > > > their
> > > > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > > > to hold
> > > > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > > > more
> > > > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > > > are, I
> > > > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > > > about
> > > > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > > > and
> > > > > > various observations...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > > > to
> > > > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to
> access,
> > > > read
> > > > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > > > And so,
> > > > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > > > to see
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > > > get
> > > > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > > > at the
> > > > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > > > tiny
> > > > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > > > then
> > > > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > > > kindle
> > > > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > > > they
> > > > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > > > way,
> > > > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would
> like
> > > > me to
> > > > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > > > the
> > > > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > > > excerpts
> > > > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > > > from
> > > > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > > > contain and
> > > > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > > > available in
> > > > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > > > of
> > > > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be)
> and
> > > > to
> > > > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found
> to
> > > > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > > > (I'm
> > > > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > > > any
> > > > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of
> any
> > > > Acts
> > > > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both
> my
> > > > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > > > slightly
> > > > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > > > Richard III
> > > > > > and his history.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 17:56:17
--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
> It was Portugal, the infanta Joana of Portugal, sister of Joao II of
> Portugal, and daughter of Afonso V ("El Africano"). Joana, born in
> February 1452 was regent of Portugal during the African expedition of her
> father and brother. Her heart was set on the religious life and she
> turned down several marriage offers, including Richard's.
I had read that there happened to be a shortage of women of royal lineage and of suitable age at about that time, and this would seem to bear this out.
Richard was in dire need of an heir, and as quickly as possible. A bride who at 33 was already rather long in the tooth, and of unproven childbearing ability, would not normally seem a first choice.
Were there any other possibilities for a foreign bride for Richard? I believe Mary of Burgundy might have been considered. She would have been an interesting political pick. Unfortunately, she was already not only married but dead by 1485.
Kay
> It was Portugal, the infanta Joana of Portugal, sister of Joao II of
> Portugal, and daughter of Afonso V ("El Africano"). Joana, born in
> February 1452 was regent of Portugal during the African expedition of her
> father and brother. Her heart was set on the religious life and she
> turned down several marriage offers, including Richard's.
I had read that there happened to be a shortage of women of royal lineage and of suitable age at about that time, and this would seem to bear this out.
Richard was in dire need of an heir, and as quickly as possible. A bride who at 33 was already rather long in the tooth, and of unproven childbearing ability, would not normally seem a first choice.
Were there any other possibilities for a foreign bride for Richard? I believe Mary of Burgundy might have been considered. She would have been an interesting political pick. Unfortunately, she was already not only married but dead by 1485.
Kay
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 18:01:32
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 18:50:57
as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 18:56:41
well, there I go counting on A. Wier's account again. Maybe after Christmas I'll have some revisionist information on that whole story. Frankly, it never made sense to me either for Richard to take up with the daughter ofthe Wydville faction. That is something a Tudor would have done.
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> wrong. richard did not have a daliance with his neice, elizabeth of york. it appears she had and infatuattion of him, and the rumours flowed, very likely fanned by the woodville ambitions.
> Â
> at the time of the rumours richard, via ambassadors was arranging her marriage and his with portuguese royalty or was it spanish. no doubt someone on the forum can provide the exact details.
> Â
> roslyn
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, day.brian75 <day.brian75@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: day.brian75 <day.brian75@...>
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 10:41 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi Annette;
> I'm having a little trouble navigating this forum, so once and a while I miss a reply. Thanks again for the insight. Although nobility like Richard expected to have power over others as a birth-given right, they got religated to lesser positions if they were unpredictable, incomatent lunies. Government couldn't function at all with idiot insubordinate idiots in control of large portions of it, like the entire north of England for instance. Richard's previous history seems to have been that of a stern, but fair and compatent ruler in the North. The iradic behavior of his after the sudden death of his brother doesn't make sense on the scanty, biased, historical accounts available. Even the moves that Richard made in his short rein after the boys dissapeared in the Tower, although drastic reactions to immediate emergencies, seem to have been relatively rational and well within the boundries of the powers of a king. Yes, he had a foolish daliance with his
> neice, a caniving, lusty, young woman from a family with a history of similar stratagies to power. But ultimately he dropped the affair. things were escalating to a bad political situation at the time and dumping her was probably a good idea, but he was king then and he could do what he wanted.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian, or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
> >
> > However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed, or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
> >
> > There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely, very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
> >
> > Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
> > 1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
> > 2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an opposing path to Richard?
> > 2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9 June?
> > 3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
> > 4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings rather than merely arrest and detain him?
> > 5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some of whom were not even present at the meeting?
> > 6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's family, and free all the others unharmed?
> >
> > Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would be interesting to hear what you think.
> > Best regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: day.brian75
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Annette Carson
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
> > >
> > > Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
> > >
> > > Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
> > >
> > > Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
> > >
> > > The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
> > >
> > > Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
> > >
> > > Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
> > >
> > > Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
> > >
> > > Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
> > >
> > > Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
> > >
> > > Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> > > Hope this is helpful
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: day.brian75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > > Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > > > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > > > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > > > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > > > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > > > scenario to work.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > > > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > > > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > > > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > > > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > > > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > > > >
> > > > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > > > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > > > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > > > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > > > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > > > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > > > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > > > >
> > > > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > > > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > > > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > > > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > > > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > > > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > > > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > > > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > > > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > > > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > > > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > > > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > > > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > > > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > > > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > > > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > > > in
> > > > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > > > understanding
> > > > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > > > he
> > > > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > > > during a
> > > > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > > > approached
> > > > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > > > (also to
> > > > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > > > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > > > in
> > > > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > > > Commynes
> > > > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > > > IIRC,
> > > > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > > > something
> > > > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > > > Gloucester's
> > > > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > > > IV's
> > > > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > > > it
> > > > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > > > second
> > > > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > > > and
> > > > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > > > by
> > > > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > > Catesby.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > > > of
> > > > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > > > was the
> > > > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > > > 'missing'
> > > > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > > > the
> > > > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > > > mood,
> > > > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > > > evidence/s
> > > > > > for this are :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > > > subsequent
> > > > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > > > generous
> > > > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > > > this
> > > > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > > > pre-contract.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > > > moment
> > > > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > > > there at
> > > > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > > > revealed it
> > > > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > > > allowing
> > > > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > > > (although
> > > > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > > > so
> > > > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > > > Stillington
> > > > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > > > him
> > > > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > > > chronicler,
> > > > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > > > the
> > > > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > > > texts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > > > Titulus
> > > > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > > > but am
> > > > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > > > material
> > > > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > > > misrepresented
> > > > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > > > to
> > > > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > > > was one
> > > > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > > > accepted
> > > > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > > > "I do
> > > > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > > > but not
> > > > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > > > sexual
> > > > > > intercourse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > > > can
> > > > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > > > US
> > > > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > > > 100
> > > > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > > > and
> > > > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > > > Stillington
> > > > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > > > the
> > > > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > > > 'horrible and
> > > > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > > > 'offences' were
> > > > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > > > Judges
> > > > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > > > their
> > > > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > > > to hold
> > > > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > > > more
> > > > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > > > are, I
> > > > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > > > about
> > > > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > > > and
> > > > > > various observations...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > > > to
> > > > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > > > read
> > > > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > > > And so,
> > > > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > > > to see
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > > > get
> > > > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > > > at the
> > > > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > > > tiny
> > > > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > > > then
> > > > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > > > kindle
> > > > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > > > they
> > > > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > > > way,
> > > > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > > > me to
> > > > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > > > the
> > > > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > > > excerpts
> > > > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > > > from
> > > > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > > > contain and
> > > > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > > > available in
> > > > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > > > of
> > > > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > > > to
> > > > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > > > (I'm
> > > > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > > > any
> > > > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > > > Acts
> > > > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > > > slightly
> > > > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > > > Richard III
> > > > > > and his history.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> wrong. richard did not have a daliance with his neice, elizabeth of york. it appears she had and infatuattion of him, and the rumours flowed, very likely fanned by the woodville ambitions.
> Â
> at the time of the rumours richard, via ambassadors was arranging her marriage and his with portuguese royalty or was it spanish. no doubt someone on the forum can provide the exact details.
> Â
> roslyn
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, day.brian75 <day.brian75@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: day.brian75 <day.brian75@...>
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 10:41 AM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Hi Annette;
> I'm having a little trouble navigating this forum, so once and a while I miss a reply. Thanks again for the insight. Although nobility like Richard expected to have power over others as a birth-given right, they got religated to lesser positions if they were unpredictable, incomatent lunies. Government couldn't function at all with idiot insubordinate idiots in control of large portions of it, like the entire north of England for instance. Richard's previous history seems to have been that of a stern, but fair and compatent ruler in the North. The iradic behavior of his after the sudden death of his brother doesn't make sense on the scanty, biased, historical accounts available. Even the moves that Richard made in his short rein after the boys dissapeared in the Tower, although drastic reactions to immediate emergencies, seem to have been relatively rational and well within the boundries of the powers of a king. Yes, he had a foolish daliance with his
> neice, a caniving, lusty, young woman from a family with a history of similar stratagies to power. But ultimately he dropped the affair. things were escalating to a bad political situation at the time and dumping her was probably a good idea, but he was king then and he could do what he wanted.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, Brian, as you will have detected, I tried to lay out the bare bones of the evidence without editorial comment. However, as an historian, or as a researcher, personal judgement is very important when there is so little hard evidence. You may read Mancini, Crowland, Commynes, Vergil and More and decide you find one or other of their versions convincing. They all write with considerable animus towards Richard, so if you believe one of them, as some historians do, then you will conclude he behaved that way towards Hastings because he was a tyrant who brooked no opposition.
> >
> > However, nowadays there are few serious historians who believe all that stuff. In general, they exercise discretion as to which stories are believable, and which are fabrication, repetition of myths, ill-informed, or just plain bias. If you read Charles Ross's authoritative biography, you will find he cherrypicks which sources he does and doesn't credit. Alison Hanham wrote a whole book about the sources for Richard III and how credible they are. So did Jeremy Potter.
> >
> > There are no records or chronicles sympathetic to Richard, so if you decide to look at both sides of the coin instead of only one, you are forced to think for yourself. I believe this mental effort is what attracts Ricardians to the Great Debate, and makes them such interesting people. It involves examining the stories and their sources, exactly like Ross, Hanham and Potter. It helps if your investigations are informed by an understanding of the 15th century and, more importantly, of Richard's own character. For example if you read Mancini, whose narration is antagonistic to him, it may surprise you that he reports very favourable things about Richard and the high regard in which the people held him (and, conversely, very negative things about certain other key figures!). It's a well known tenet of psychology that past behaviour is a great predictor of future behaviour, so information such as this is very useful.
> >
> > Finally, if we are grappling with what Hastings did to incur Richard's wrath, it is relevant to consider the following:
> > 1. How did Richard explain it, and how was it generally reported?
> > 2.a. What was happening around this time that might set Hastings on an opposing path to Richard?
> > 2.b. What did they discuss at that four-hour Great Council meeting on 9 June?
> > 3. Why did Richard send for armed forces?
> > 4. Why was it necessary to take the huge risk of executing Hastings rather than merely arrest and detain him?
> > 5. Why were at least five other people arrested at the same time, some of whom were not even present at the meeting?
> > 6. If it was an act of terrorism, i.e. to warn others what would happen if they opposed him, why did he behave so considerately to Hastings's family, and free all the others unharmed?
> >
> > Obviously I have my own views about all this (which you can read in my book!), but right now I am trying not to impose them on you. Indeed, you'll have discovered that different people on this forum have lots of different views, which is why it's so enjoyable to exchange ideas. Once you've considered the above questions (and any others I've overlooked), it would be interesting to hear what you think.
> > Best regards, Annette
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: day.brian75
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks so much, Annette. I did understand what you have recounted. I was hoping there was some evidence of Hastings withholding information from Richard about the supposed first mairrage of Edward IV, or at least some evidence of why Richard turned on Hastings so suddenly. As I have mentioned, I read A. Weir's book, but she doesn't give any good reason for this loss of faith. Mrs. Weir is regarded as biased against on this forum and I was hoping she had neglected some information on Hasting's loss of favor, but it does not sound that way.
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > P.S. I omitted the account(s) by Philippe de Commynes, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Commynes is useful in that he identifies Stillington's role in the matter of the precontract, but, as with the more well-known Vergil and More, Commynes is suspiciously circumstantial about details of which he is unlikely to have possessed reliable knowledge. And, of course, he didn't even live in England. If we are to be scrupulously objective, I'd rather leave him out.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Annette Carson
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oooh-er, Brian ... this is the crux of our discussion, so maybe it's a good idea to set out the recorded facts (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, as I'm doing this without time to look things up properly).
> > >
> > > Until 9 June all was proceeding smoothly under Richard's protectorship, a coronation date and parliament date had been set for Edward V and orders given to mint coins, etc. On 9 June there was a major council meeting, perhaps a Great Council, lasting four hours, after which 'no one spoke to the queen' (Simon Stallworth's letter, which says it was a meeting of 'the lords temporal and spiritual', so it wasn't just the ordinary council). After that, there were no more privy seal writs in Edward V's name. On June 10/11 Richard sent letters to various supporters in the north urgently requesting armed forces to resist plots to murder him (and Buckingham) on the part of 'the queen, her blood adherents and affinity'. On June 13 meetings took place of two divisions of the king's council, one at Westminster to make plans for the coronation, the other at the Tower of London.
> > >
> > > Vergil and More (writing some 30 - 40 years later) give accounts of this meeting that contain enormous amounts of extremely well-known detail that I need not repeat here, used later by other Tudor chroniclers and by Shakespeare. Both allege that Richard confronted Hastings, accused him of plotting his destruction, and had him arrested and executed forthwith.
> > >
> > > Those writing more or less contemporaneously provide none of this detail. Mancini, who was in London at the time, heard the following version (we don't know who his informant was): Richard attended a council meeting at the Tower, where among those present were Hastings, Rotherham (Archbishop of York) and Morton (Bishop of Ely). He accused them of laying an ambush for him, called in his soldiers and Buckingham, who 'cut down' Hastings on a charge of treason and arrested 'the others' (unspecified). To quell the panic in London, Richard sent out a proclamation that a plot had been detected for which Hastings, the originator, had paid the penalty. Oh, I forgot to say that Mancini says Richard had learned from Buckingham that Hastings, Rotherham and Morton were meeting occasionally in each other's houses.
> > >
> > > The Crowland Chronicle is even more succinct: when Hastings attended the council meeting on 13 June he was beheaded on Richard's authority. Rotherham and Morton were arrested and sent off to be imprisoned. Voilà tout!
> > >
> > > Some accounts include Stanley among those arrested - I don't think there's any hard evidence about this. We do know Elizabeth Lambert ('Jane Shore') was also rounded up, as were Oliver King and John Forster. All those arrested were later freed, not counting Morton who absconded.
> > >
> > > Two independent jottings around the 1480s refer to the event: the fragment discovered by Richard Firth Green states that some people planned Richard's death, the plot was discovered, and Hastings was beheaded forthwith. The register of St Alban's Abbey records that Hastings's fate 'was deserved, as it is said'.
> > >
> > > Now, moving on to the precontract. The first clue that the precontract had been discovered occurs in the text taken for the sermon preached by Dr Ralph Shaw at St Paul's Cross on 22 June: 'bastard slips shall not take deep root'. The sermon is reported as alleging (inter alia) that Edward IV's children by Elizabeth Woodville were not legitimate. We do not have the text, and it has been reported in many differing ways. Mancini is unfortunately particularly disjointed here, and seems to report a list of every rumour that he heard flying about, including the illegitimacy of Edward IV's sons.
> > >
> > > Over the following couple of days high level meetings took place which culminated in a gathering of the parliamentary representatives who were at Westminster. They drew up a petition which was then presented to Richard asking him to replace Edward V as king. The Crowland chronicler sets the case out clearly: Richard's pretext, he says, for taking the throne was set out in 'a supplication contained in a certain parchment roll': the boys were bastards owing to their father having been precontracted to Lady Eleanor Butler before he married Elizabeth Woodville. The words of this petition were later reiterated in Titulus Regius.
> > >
> > > Those, I think, are the facts which can be verified with documentary evidence (insofar as anything can be verified!).
> > >
> > > Why did Richard suddenly turn on Hastings? Well, the only reason put forward in the above accounts is that Richard uncovered a plot to assassinate him, and indeed Mancini reports a public proclamation to this effect.
> > > Hope this is helpful
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: day.brian75
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> > >
> > > Hi, I'mm kind of eavesdropping on your thread here because I am researching a fictional story on Richard III. Can you clear up for me why Richard III might suddenly turn on Hastings upon returning to the meeting and perhaps finding out about concrete proof of Edward IV's first clandestine mairrage? Thanks; Brian Day
> > >
> > > --- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah, good point. However, not only is the "scuffle" documented, but
> > > > Hastings did lose his head soon after the meeting, Stanley was put under
> > > > house arrest and Morton and Rotherham were held in tower cells and
> > > > Morton was later given to Buckingham to hold in custody. If you join my
> > > > timing with Hancock's theory, then you don't need a bio break for the
> > > > scenario to work.
> > > >
> > > > Joan
> > > > ---
> > > > 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/> -- trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately it isn't from the Crowland Chronicle that we hear the
> > > > story of the gap in the council meeting. Nor from Mancini, nor from
> > > > Vergil. It's pure Thomas More - and, of course, Shakespeare. From your
> > > > current reading of "Murder in the Tower", can you confirm whether it's
> > > > at that break in the meeting that Hancock suggests Richard made the
> > > > decision to supplant Edward V?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:08 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > > Catesby.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Annette and Hi Joan,
> > > > >
> > > > > Annette, I am still at the 'jury's out' stage with the Hancock
> > > > theory. I DO think it's well researched, but I don't necessarily see how
> > > > some of the conclusions have been reached if you read the actual source
> > > > material itself, and don't just rely on his interpretation of it. But,
> > > > as I've said, I'm not an expert, just someone who's trying to look at
> > > > all possibilities. He does cover why it might be that Catesby would have
> > > > told him, despite it not being his place...
> > > > >
> > > > > But Joan is bang on - as far as I can see, the central tenet of
> > > > Hancock's proposals are centered on the idea that "the later you believe
> > > > Richard made the decision to take Edward V's place on the throne, the
> > > > better you view him and any decisions he later took" and, in order to
> > > > support that tenet, he looks for something that happened during the
> > > > infamous 'gap' in the split meeting. Based not on speculation, but on
> > > > some details connected to Richard's supposed mood on leaving and then on
> > > > re-entering and so forth. But he also disputes the likelihood that the
> > > > Croyland Chronicler would really have ever had such close contact to the
> > > > goings on as it seems from his reporting. I won't re-argue all Hancock's
> > > > points, but he does back them up, but occasionally I do get the feeling
> > > > that there is a little of the "I wish to prove a certain point, and so
> > > > I'm going to start with my conclusion and work backwards" going on! But
> > > > perhaps that's just my own ignorance of the amount of research involved
> > > > as he's clearly done a great deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "joanszechtman"
> > > > u2nohoo@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before his book was published, Hancock gave a talk to the 2008 AGM
> > > > in
> > > > > > Orlando, FL where he shared his Catesby theory with us. My
> > > > understanding
> > > > > > is that Hancock's thrust was to show when Richard first considered
> > > > > > seeking the crown as opposed to remaining Edward V's protector. So
> > > > he
> > > > > > presented a chronology and his research showed him that it was
> > > > during a
> > > > > > break in that fated June 13th council meeting where Catesby
> > > > approached
> > > > > > Richard with the information, and that Hastings knew about it
> > > > (also to
> > > > > > explain why Hastings was so summarily executed).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 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/> -- trailer
> > > > <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> > > > > > ebooks at Smashwords
> > > > > > <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > > <email@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry that I forgot you had been reading Peter Hancock's "Murder
> > > > in
> > > > > > the Tower", which puts forward the theory that William Catesby the
> > > > > > younger revealed the precontract. However, Peter does concede that
> > > > > > Stillington witnessed the secret marriage, and indeed accepts
> > > > Commynes
> > > > > > so far as to describe Stillington as the 'officiating priest'.
> > > > IIRC,
> > > > > > Peter's ideas are mainly concerned with who told Richard,
> > > > something
> > > > > > which of course no one can possibly know for sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a matter of interest, it was actually not Richard of
> > > > Gloucester's
> > > > > > place to take action, canonically speaking, in respect of Edward
> > > > IV's
> > > > > > bigamy. The onus was on anyone present at the first union to make
> > > > it
> > > > > > known as an impediment to the second union. But of course the
> > > > second
> > > > > > union was also secret, so nobody could. After the second union,
> > > > and
> > > > > > Elizabeth's coronation, who dared to risk the king's displeasure
> > > > by
> > > > > > revealing his first marriage?
> > > > > > > Regards, Annette
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:36 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re : Stillington Vs
> > > > Catesby.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Annette,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks very much for this information. From what I have gathered
> > > > of
> > > > > > Hancock's book, his proposal is that Catesby and not Stillington
> > > > was the
> > > > > > person who revealed this information to Richard III during the
> > > > 'missing'
> > > > > > half hour of the council/parliamentary meeting held at the Tower,
> > > > the
> > > > > > one from which he left in a reasonable mood and returned in a foul
> > > > mood,
> > > > > > shortly thereafter the Hastings episode occurred.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, from what I can gather, Hancock's main supporting
> > > > evidence/s
> > > > > > for this are :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1) That Catesby's land holding suddenly vastly increased
> > > > subsequent
> > > > > > to this date and time, Hancock provides charts showing just how
> > > > generous
> > > > > > Richard WAS to Catesby (which I can now see!) and he suggests that
> > > > this
> > > > > > implies (to him) that possibly he rendered more of a service to
> > > > Richard
> > > > > > than merely affirming that he knew of the existence of the
> > > > pre-contract.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (2) Stillington had no reason to wait until that particular
> > > > moment
> > > > > > to disclose it to Richard (he doesn't even appear to have been
> > > > there at
> > > > > > the time) - he suggests that surely Stillington would have
> > > > revealed it
> > > > > > as soon as Edward passed, or very soon thereafter rather than
> > > > allowing
> > > > > > plans for Edward V's coronation to move forward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (3) Stillington was, as you say, imprisoned for a while
> > > > (although
> > > > > > late released) and he suggests that this was because Richard was
> > > > so
> > > > > > furious that he HADN'T personally informed him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (4) Hancock suggests that de Comines merely reports that
> > > > Stillington
> > > > > > 'affirmed' the existence of the pre-contract when Richard asked
> > > > him
> > > > > > (although WHEN he asked him isn't clear!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (5) He also references various other sources (in particular, he
> > > > > > seems quite keen on quoting the Croyland Chronicler (although I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > sure if his excerpts include both the first AND the second
> > > > chronicler,
> > > > > > or whether they are drawn from one or the other.) He acknowledges
> > > > the
> > > > > > problems with the Croyland writings and discusses the 'political'
> > > > > > motivations which might have existed in those writings, so he
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > use them as 'reliable' sources exactly, but more as supporting
> > > > texts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (6) He also seems to suggest more evidence contained in the
> > > > Titulus
> > > > > > Regius but, as yet, I haven't got that far in the book!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am reasonably impressed with the thesis he's trying to make
> > > > but am
> > > > > > still open to it being Stillington and am keen to read more which
> > > > > > perhaps looks at things with different excerpts of the source
> > > > material
> > > > > > in order to see which has more weight.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (please excuse me if I've horribly misunderstood or
> > > > misrepresented
> > > > > > Hancock here!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Annette Carson"
> > > > > > email@ wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no documentary evidence of Edward's secret marriage
> > > > to
> > > > > > Eleanor, which is self-evident when you come to think of it ... !
> > > > > > Marriage could take many forms, most of them informal unless it
> > > > was one
> > > > > > of those important family business arrangements. The Church
> > > > accepted
> > > > > > marriage as having taken place when two persons said to each other
> > > > "I do
> > > > > > marry you", preferably in front of witnesses. Secret marriage was
> > > > > > irregular (because it prevented anyone from raising objections),
> > > > but not
> > > > > > invalid. A marriage was also deemed to have taken place when the
> > > > > > parties, having agreed that they would marry each other, then had
> > > > sexual
> > > > > > intercourse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The main source for what took place between Edward and Eleanor
> > > > can
> > > > > > be found in the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, available on the
> > > > US
> > > > > > Richard III Society's website. One shouldn't accept Commynes as
> > > > 100
> > > > > > percent reliable, especially as he was writing around the 1490s,
> > > > and
> > > > > > also tended to over-egg his puddings, but he places Robert
> > > > Stillington
> > > > > > as being present at the exchange of vows. Stillington was hounded
> > > > the
> > > > > > length and breadth of England by Henry Tudor as soon as he came to
> > > > > > power, with Henry's parliament accusing him of unspecified
> > > > 'horrible and
> > > > > > heinous offences'. However, it's pretty clear that these
> > > > 'offences' were
> > > > > > connected with Titulus Regius: when the Lords in Parliament and
> > > > Judges
> > > > > > in the Exchequer met to consider what to do about Titulus Regius,
> > > > their
> > > > > > conclusion was that 'the Bishop of Bath made the Bill', and they
> > > > > > recommended summoning him to be examined. Instead, Henry refused
> > > > to hold
> > > > > > the enquiry and issued Stillington with a pardon. All this is no
> > > > more
> > > > > > than circumstantial, but both pro- and anti-Richard historians
> > > > are, I
> > > > > > think, unanimous that Robert Stillington was the person who knew
> > > > about
> > > > > > the precontract and revealed it to Richard.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: elena_nuk
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:10 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Walpole, Edward IV
> > > > and
> > > > > > various observations...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you for the link to calibre Joan, that's really very
> > > > > > helpful. I love books and would never want to argue for anything
> > > > to
> > > > > > replace them. Truth be told, I would far rather be able to access,
> > > > read
> > > > > > and enjoy a hard copy book than an e-book, but unfortunately, the
> > > > > > e-books often offer me the only truly accessible way of reading.
> > > > And so,
> > > > > > from that point of view, I am very grateful for their existence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the DVD of the trial
> > > > > > reconstruction, I shall look out for that or order it as I'd love
> > > > to see
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've had a reasonably productive time today as I managed to
> > > > get
> > > > > > hold of a library copy of the Hancock book and, having now looked
> > > > at the
> > > > > > illustrations contained therein, I see they are in fact rather
> > > > tiny
> > > > > > anyway so I shall scan them into my computer, enlarge them and
> > > > then
> > > > > > shoot them over in a .pdf to my kindle to view alongside the
> > > > kindle
> > > > > > version of the book. In actual fact, now I've seen them, perhaps
> > > > they
> > > > > > don't matter quite as much as I'd imagined they would but, either
> > > > way,
> > > > > > I'm glad to at least be able to look at what the author would like
> > > > me to
> > > > > > look at! I'm truly very happy about this as I was really enjoying
> > > > the
> > > > > > book and am now able to continue with it and go back over those
> > > > excerpts
> > > > > > which seemed to require reference to the illustrations.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've also ordered the Annette Carson and the Hammond books
> > > > from
> > > > > > the library, really to see just how many illustrations they
> > > > contain and
> > > > > > in the hope that, very soon, the publishers might make them
> > > > available in
> > > > > > a kindle format.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd also like to find out if there's a modern English version
> > > > of
> > > > > > the Titulus Regius available anywhere (I'm sure there must be) and
> > > > to
> > > > > > ask if there is any documentary proof which has ever been found to
> > > > > > indisputably prove the existence of the pre-contract of Edward IV
> > > > (I'm
> > > > > > taking it as understood that it DID exist, but wonder if there is
> > > > any
> > > > > > written, documentary evidence surviving of it independently of any
> > > > Acts
> > > > > > of Parliament?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you so much to all of you for bearing with me in both my
> > > > > > hunt to find accessible illustrations and also my undoubtedly
> > > > slightly
> > > > > > dense questions on some of the more basic facts surrounding
> > > > Richard III
> > > > > > and his history.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 19:12:49
The signatory was actually William Catesby senior, knight.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 19:18:00
It might give further insight into why he was executed so swiftly after Bosworth.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
The signatory was actually William Catesby senior, knight.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
The signatory was actually William Catesby senior, knight.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 23:03:21
okay, i will concede that it was the cat's father who interacted with eleanor. however, again it remains entirely possible that the father told his son about this detail of e4's life. knowledge was power or suicide in the 15thC. it would all depend when and where you played your hand as to what could be gained.
roslyn
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 2:12 PM
The signatory was actually William Catesby senior, knight.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
roslyn
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 2:12 PM
The signatory was actually William Catesby senior, knight.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
--- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
To:
Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
Kay
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> Â
> Reference: L1/79
> Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly broken.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of Salop.
> Â
> and
> Â
> Reference: L1/85
> Creation dates: [1468]
> Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> Scope and Content
> Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co. Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and ?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the fee.
> Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John Huggeford esquires and others.
> Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> Endorsements:
> 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler] [sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John Evars
> Datum die
> quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> post conquestum octavo
> Â
> i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> Â
> in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby. with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and possibly have kept them.
> Â
> (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> Â
> roslynÂ
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 23:11:49
That was Hancock's point too, that Jr acquired all the accounts from Sr
and kept the documents in a "safe" place to be used when and if
appropriate.
Joan
---
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> okay, i will concede that it was the cat's father who interacted with
eleanor. however, again it remains entirely possible that the father
told his son about this detail of e4's life. knowledge was power or
suicide in the 15thC. it would all depend when and where you played your
hand as to what could be gained.
> Â
> roslyn
> Â
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, Annette Carson email@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette Carson email@...
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 2:12 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> The signatory was actually William Catesby senior, knight.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
> as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some
interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her
sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered
some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
>
> lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy oregon_katy@... wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
>
> I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the
connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did
Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
>
> The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed
them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
>
> Kay
>
> --- In , fayre rose fayreroze@
wrote:
> >
>
> > i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the
precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> > Â
> > Reference: L1/79
> > Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> > Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly
broken.
> > Scope and Content
> > Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to
Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of
John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate
issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all
his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands,
tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital
lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the
fee.
> > Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William
Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> > Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes
Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of
Salop.
> > Â
> > and
> > Â
> > Reference: L1/85
> > Creation dates: [1468]
> > Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> > Scope and Content
> > Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas
Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife
of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of
Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas
Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together
with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co.
Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and
services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and
?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for
life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed
to the capital lords of the fee.
> > Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John
Huggeford esquires and others.
> > Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> > Endorsements:
> > 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler]
[sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John
Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John
Evars
> > Datum die
> > quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> > post conquestum octavo
> > Â
> > i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to
support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> > Â
> > in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has
possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby.
with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers
or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and
possibly have kept them.
> > Â
> > (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> > Â
> > roslynÂ
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
and kept the documents in a "safe" place to be used when and if
appropriate.
Joan
---
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/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> okay, i will concede that it was the cat's father who interacted with
eleanor. however, again it remains entirely possible that the father
told his son about this detail of e4's life. knowledge was power or
suicide in the 15thC. it would all depend when and where you played your
hand as to what could be gained.
> Â
> roslyn
> Â
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, Annette Carson email@... wrote:
>
>
> From: Annette Carson email@...
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 2:12 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> The signatory was actually William Catesby senior, knight.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
>
> as a witness to these documents, it is highly likely catesby had some
interaction with eleanor. especially the one willing property to her
sister elizabeth, duchess of norfolk. the sister may have also offered
some information with regard to eleanor and e4.
>
> lawyers learn a lot from their clients.
>
> --- On Thu, 12/15/11, oregon_katy oregon_katy@... wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy oregon_katy@...
> Subject: Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
> To:
> Received: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 1:01 PM
>
> I must be rather dense this morning, because I don't see the
connection between these contracts and the theory that Catesby did
Richard some service for which he was handsomely rewarded.
>
> The documents involve Eleanor Butler and Catesby, a lawyer, witnessed
them, but I don't see the smoking gun that you evidently do.
>
> Kay
>
> --- In , fayre rose fayreroze@
wrote:
> >
>
> > i think it is entirely possible that catesby informed richard of the
precontract. two historic documents support this belief.
> > Â
> > Reference: L1/79
> > Creation dates: Chepingdorset 10 May 31 Hen.VI [1453]
> > Physical characteristics: Seal, heraldic, round, of red wax, partly
broken.
> > Scope and Content
> > Gift, with warranty, by Ralph Botiller lord of Sudeley knight to
Thomas Botiller his son and heir and to Thomas' wife Eleanor daughter of
John Earl of Salop' and of Margaret his wife and to their legitimate
issue of his manors of Chepingdorset, Greffe, Fennycompton' and of all
his lands and tenements called Shipleysthing in Greffe: all the lands,
tenements, rents, reversions and services are to be held of the capital
lords by the services due and accustomed to the capital lords of the
fee.
> > Witnesses: William Catesby knight William Birmyncham knight William
Lucy esquire Thomas Throkmorton and John Broune and others
> > Endorsement: maij 31 H 6 Radus Boteler dominus de Sudley en feoffes
Tho his sonne & heire & Alionora his wyfe daughter of John Earle of
Salop.
> > Â
> > and
> > Â
> > Reference: L1/85
> > Creation dates: [1468]
> > Physical characteristics: Seal, round, of red wax, on tag.
> > Scope and Content
> > Gift, with warranty, by Eleanor Boteler' lately the wife of Thomas
Boteler' knight now deceased to Elizabeth Duchess of Northefolch' wife
of John now Duke of Northefolch' one of the daughters of John Earl of
Salop' deceased and sister of her the aforesaid Eleanor and to Thomas
Throkmarton' and to John Eyuers of her manor of Fenycompton' together
with the reversion of her manor of Ore [Oare] under Savernake in co.
Wilts and of divers messuages, lands, tenements, rents, reversions and
services in Draycote, Coldecote and Chikeladerigg [Draycot, Calcutt and
?Chicklade] in the said county, now in the tenure of John Cheyny for
life, without demand of waste to be held by services due and accustomed
to the capital lords of the fee.
> > Witnesses: William Catesby knight Thomas Huggeford and John
Huggeford esquires and others.
> > Fenycompton' 4 June 8 Ed.IV
> > Endorsements:
> > 4 Junij viijo Ed 4 Alionior Boterler late wyfe of Sr Tho Bo[?terler]
[sic] enfeoffs Eliz dutchesse of Norfoulke one of the daughters of John
Earle of Salop sister of the said Alionore Tho Throckmorton and John
Evars
> > Datum die
> > quarto Junij Ed: quarti
> > post conquestum octavo
> > Â
> > i have not read hancock's book. but, did wonder what he had to
support his belief that catesby informed richard.
> > Â
> > in addition to the above documents, richard at one time has
possession of sudeley castle. if i correctly recall, so did catesby.
with catesby being a lawyer, if there were any butler/bottiller papers
or documents left there, he would very likely have read them and
possibly have kept them.
> > Â
> > (i really do need to get my notes sorted and data entered.)
> > Â
> > roslynÂ
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re : Stillington Vs Catesby.
2011-12-15 23:34:19
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> This entire story only comes from More Katy, don't forget that, so who is to believe it ramtic as it sounds?
> Paul
Quite true, and that fact indicates that what he describes should be taken with a pound or two of salt. But it would be just as unwise to disregard whatever More/Morton says as it is to take everything as gospel.
I see it as a matter discerning which are facts and which is the slant on them. Then the facts can be compared to other facts, if known, and actual events can be traced. Even the slant can be useful, as there must be a reason for it. What did X do to Y, or to Y's family, that provoked the antipathy that drips off the page? The events of these times are riddled with criss-crossing and interlocking family relationships and family feuds. No doubt some or most of the seemingly inexplicable actions of this or that person are rooted in them.
Kay
>
> This entire story only comes from More Katy, don't forget that, so who is to believe it ramtic as it sounds?
> Paul
Quite true, and that fact indicates that what he describes should be taken with a pound or two of salt. But it would be just as unwise to disregard whatever More/Morton says as it is to take everything as gospel.
I see it as a matter discerning which are facts and which is the slant on them. Then the facts can be compared to other facts, if known, and actual events can be traced. Even the slant can be useful, as there must be a reason for it. What did X do to Y, or to Y's family, that provoked the antipathy that drips off the page? The events of these times are riddled with criss-crossing and interlocking family relationships and family feuds. No doubt some or most of the seemingly inexplicable actions of this or that person are rooted in them.
Kay
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.