Greetings, all!

Greetings, all!

2012-02-26 16:56:17
natusm
Back in the late medieval age I was a member of this group, and I think I allowed my subscription to lapse, as it were, on the birth of my male heir. Since then, I have been honored to have corresponded with Robert Fripp on his play, and I also play-tested (another kind of "play") the misnamed Richard III: Wars of the Roses for Columbia Games. Speaking of musicals, I am still in the toils of writing the book and lyrics for one on Henry Tudor, in the "if you think Richard 3 was bad, wait until you see *this* guy!" vein. I see from the recent entries that I've missed a lot in my prolonged absence, so I'll just say hello and post some questions:

1) It seems that we have some authors represented here, and I would like to purchase at least their Ricardian-themed works if possible. Is the information about publications collected in an easily accessible area?

2) Are there other modern historians, like Alison Weir, who are convinced of Richard's guilt? I think I remember David Starkey making dismissive comments about Richard, but I'm not sure.

3) From my reading of Richard's reign, it seems that his support among the nobility caved in continually and ultimately, as we know, disastrously. From Edward IV's death on, he had to strive not only against the Woodvilles, but against his brother's close friend Hastings. Then Buckingham turned on him, with the assistance of Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley. Last, of course, Rhys ap Thomas, both Stanley brothers, as well as others defected to Tudor, and possibly we can throw Percy in as well.

So while the Woodville agenda is certainly clear, I've never understood why Hastings would make common cause with his enemies against Richard, or why Buckingham would change loyalties. Maybe these magnates are all the exceptions rather than the rule, but I find this rash of conspiracies and rebellions against Richard rather inexplicable.

Thanks!

Re: Greetings, all!

2012-02-26 18:45:32
Judy Thomson
Prof. M. Hicks takes swipes at RIII and allegedly eschews professional courtesy, in re: Richard the Second research. 

But I've never met him and wouldn't want to cast aspersions. He may well be very kind to small mammals.
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: natusm <nvenice2@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:56 AM
Subject: Greetings, all!


 
Back in the late medieval age I was a member of this group, and I think I allowed my subscription to lapse, as it were, on the birth of my male heir. Since then, I have been honored to have corresponded with Robert Fripp on his play, and I also play-tested (another kind of "play") the misnamed Richard III: Wars of the Roses for Columbia Games. Speaking of musicals, I am still in the toils of writing the book and lyrics for one on Henry Tudor, in the "if you think Richard 3 was bad, wait until you see *this* guy!" vein. I see from the recent entries that I've missed a lot in my prolonged absence, so I'll just say hello and post some questions:

1) It seems that we have some authors represented here, and I would like to purchase at least their Ricardian-themed works if possible. Is the information about publications collected in an easily accessible area?

2) Are there other modern historians, like Alison Weir, who are convinced of Richard's guilt? I think I remember David Starkey making dismissive comments about Richard, but I'm not sure.

3) From my reading of Richard's reign, it seems that his support among the nobility caved in continually and ultimately, as we know, disastrously. From Edward IV's death on, he had to strive not only against the Woodvilles, but against his brother's close friend Hastings. Then Buckingham turned on him, with the assistance of Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley. Last, of course, Rhys ap Thomas, both Stanley brothers, as well as others defected to Tudor, and possibly we can throw Percy in as well.

So while the Woodville agenda is certainly clear, I've never understood why Hastings would make common cause with his enemies against Richard, or why Buckingham would change loyalties. Maybe these magnates are all the exceptions rather than the rule, but I find this rash of conspiracies and rebellions against Richard rather inexplicable.

Thanks!




Re: Greetings, all!

2012-02-27 06:08:36
fayre rose
after the children of the duke of york and his wife cecily neville, buckingham was legitimate next in line to the throne. he may have always "only" been on his side. his wife was the sister of elizabeth woodville. therefore buckingham could have had some inside information with regards to the precontracted marriage.
 
therefore, cosying up to richard prior to e5 being barred to the throne would have allowed buckingham to be an "insider" as he moved to set up r3 as dispicable and murderous.
 
he very likely played a significant role in the demise of hastings.
 
beaufort and company used buckingham as much as he attempted to use them. once r3 was defeated, he would simply need to eliminate the future h7. or even just stand up and declare before the other lords that he was the true heir by legitimate bloodline. thus trumping the tudor claim..even if was tudor and his uncle jasper who defeated r3.
 
i also believe that buckingham was responsible for the demise of the princes in the tower. the tudor historians did a little rewrite of history. they couldn't very well advertise that they had almost been duped by buckingham..so the story became buckingham gave up his position in the line of inheritance to ensure evil richard was replaced by good king henry.
 


--- On Sun, 2/26/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Greetings, all!
To: "" <>
Received: Sunday, February 26, 2012, 1:45 PM



 



Prof. M. Hicks takes swipes at RIII and allegedly eschews professional courtesy, in re: Richard the Second research. 

But I've never met him and wouldn't want to cast aspersions. He may well be very kind to small mammals.
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: natusm <nvenice2@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 10:56 AM
Subject: Greetings, all!


 
Back in the late medieval age I was a member of this group, and I think I allowed my subscription to lapse, as it were, on the birth of my male heir. Since then, I have been honored to have corresponded with Robert Fripp on his play, and I also play-tested (another kind of "play") the misnamed Richard III: Wars of the Roses for Columbia Games. Speaking of musicals, I am still in the toils of writing the book and lyrics for one on Henry Tudor, in the "if you think Richard 3 was bad, wait until you see *this* guy!" vein. I see from the recent entries that I've missed a lot in my prolonged absence, so I'll just say hello and post some questions:

1) It seems that we have some authors represented here, and I would like to purchase at least their Ricardian-themed works if possible. Is the information about publications collected in an easily accessible area?

2) Are there other modern historians, like Alison Weir, who are convinced of Richard's guilt? I think I remember David Starkey making dismissive comments about Richard, but I'm not sure.

3) From my reading of Richard's reign, it seems that his support among the nobility caved in continually and ultimately, as we know, disastrously. From Edward IV's death on, he had to strive not only against the Woodvilles, but against his brother's close friend Hastings. Then Buckingham turned on him, with the assistance of Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley. Last, of course, Rhys ap Thomas, both Stanley brothers, as well as others defected to Tudor, and possibly we can throw Percy in as well.

So while the Woodville agenda is certainly clear, I've never understood why Hastings would make common cause with his enemies against Richard, or why Buckingham would change loyalties. Maybe these magnates are all the exceptions rather than the rule, but I find this rash of conspiracies and rebellions against Richard rather inexplicable.

Thanks!










Re: Greetings, all!

2012-02-27 09:04:15
boyd.nina
I'm not sure that it is correct to describe Alison Weir as a historian, in the academic sense. What she writes veers towards fiction.

Re: Greetings, all!

2012-02-29 10:26:51
Annette Carson
Greetings to you too, natusm, and welcome back! If the responses to your post have been sporadic, we must plead that we all have time-consuming interests and not a lot of spare time. However I for one like to join Ricardian discussions because one learns so much by exchanging ideas. So, rather belatedly, to respond to your questions .....

1. You don't say whether the books that interest you are fiction or non-fiction. We have writers of both on this forum. Of course, if you're a member of the Richard III Society you'll have access to society libraries, and the parent society's Barton Library catalogue is online on their website. On the other hand, if you just want to know who in this forum has written what, and perhaps discuss their books with them, maybe the best thing is for each of us to own up to our own 'oeuvre', which in my case is just one Ricardian book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" (non-fiction). Joan, Brian, Barbara et al - put your hands up!

2. The most prolific and entrenched anti-Richard historian de nos jours is undoubtedly Michael Hicks.

3. The nobility in 1483-5 totalled a good many more than the individuals you list (Woodvilles, Hastings, Buckingham and the rest), so it would be rash to generalize that Richard's support among the nobility caved in. A better way to put it would be that the nobles, magnates and moneyed classes, including self-made 'new men', were increasingly occupied with their own advancement and less concerned with the old feudal loyalties. Your studies of Henry VII will undoubtedly have shown you that he had to take extreme measures to try to keep such people on side during his reign. Historians like David Grummitt are very good on the new politics of fluctuating loyalties and hedging of bets, which didn't suddenly start with Henry VII!

Perhaps you get the impression of a rash of conspiracies and rebellions because of the heavy concentration on such things by historians, and the way they are brought into sharp focus by the brevity of Richard's reign. To be accurate, only two causes of unrest can be reliably identified, and they were separated by around a year and a half of peace and good government.

* One was the tussle for power over Edward V, which developed into opposition to his deposition and the resultant loss of status by those whose careers were affected. This accounts for the unrest of 1483 (the Woodvilles, the Hastings/Rotherham/Morton conspiracy, the October Rebellion) all of which were aimed at restoring him. In case nobody has noticed ;-), Richard and his loyal army wiped the floor with them.

* The second was the promotion of Henry Tudor by France to destabilize the English monarchy, which let's face it, nobody seriously expected to be successful. It is surely not surprising that Henry's family supported this.

As for Buckingham, who knows? I believe the most accurate picture of Buckingham's involvement is given in the Crowland Chronicle, which is suspiciously well informed (minutely informed, if you ask me) about the twists and turns of the October Rebellion. Beware of accounts written decades later which were drenched in Tudor spin! It wasn't a case of Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley supporting Buckingham - their man was Margaret's son, Tudor. The deluded Buckingham, for whatever reason, clearly piggybacked on to an already existing movement (the one to restore Edward V), thinking he had what it took to become its leader in the field, and was then unceremoniously dumped. Beyond these bare details there is only conjecture, in which we all indulge .....
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: natusm
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:56 PM
Subject: Greetings, all!



Back in the late medieval age I was a member of this group, and I think I allowed my subscription to lapse, as it were, on the birth of my male heir. Since then, I have been honored to have corresponded with Robert Fripp on his play, and I also play-tested (another kind of "play") the misnamed Richard III: Wars of the Roses for Columbia Games. Speaking of musicals, I am still in the toils of writing the book and lyrics for one on Henry Tudor, in the "if you think Richard 3 was bad, wait until you see *this* guy!" vein. I see from the recent entries that I've missed a lot in my prolonged absence, so I'll just say hello and post some questions:

1) It seems that we have some authors represented here, and I would like to purchase at least their Ricardian-themed works if possible. Is the information about publications collected in an easily accessible area?

2) Are there other modern historians, like Alison Weir, who are convinced of Richard's guilt? I think I remember David Starkey making dismissive comments about Richard, but I'm not sure.

3) From my reading of Richard's reign, it seems that his support among the nobility caved in continually and ultimately, as we know, disastrously. From Edward IV's death on, he had to strive not only against the Woodvilles, but against his brother's close friend Hastings. Then Buckingham turned on him, with the assistance of Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley. Last, of course, Rhys ap Thomas, both Stanley brothers, as well as others defected to Tudor, and possibly we can throw Percy in as well.

So while the Woodville agenda is certainly clear, I've never understood why Hastings would make common cause with his enemies against Richard, or why Buckingham would change loyalties. Maybe these magnates are all the exceptions rather than the rule, but I find this rash of conspiracies and rebellions against Richard rather inexplicable.

Thanks!





Book Review

2012-02-29 19:22:56
Florence Dove
Hello all...

Barbara has written an excellent review of Annette's "Maligned King" on her blog. If you'd like to have a look it's at http://www.bgdenvil.com

Cheers,
Flo

Re: Book Review

2012-03-02 14:37:57
Annette Carson
Thanks, Flo, and Barbara, what a nice surprise. It's so rare to get feedback on a book other than when it's first published. Much appreciated!
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Florence Dove
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:22 PM
Subject: Book Review



Hello all...

Barbara has written an excellent review of Annette's "Maligned King" on her blog. If you'd like to have a look it's at http://www.bgdenvil.com

Cheers,
Flo





Re: Book Review

2012-03-02 15:52:36
Annette Carson
I just remembered an unusual Ricardian date to commemorate - on 2 March 1484 Richard signed the founding Letters Patent for the College of Arms. Still preserved in their records today. If I knew how to upload a copy I could let you see them .....
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Florence Dove
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:22 PM
Subject: Book Review



Hello all...

Barbara has written an excellent review of Annette's "Maligned King" on her blog. If you'd like to have a look it's at http://www.bgdenvil.com

Cheers,
Flo





Re: Greetings, all!

2012-03-03 04:52:10
barbara
Dear Nutusm,

Since the subject has come up, I'll gladly mention my book here - SATIN
CINNABAR
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Satin-Cinnabar-ebook/dp/B0063MVZGC/ref=sr_1_1?s=digi
tal-text
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Satin-Cinnabar-ebook/dp/B0063MVZGC/ref=sr_1_1?s=dig
ital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1330749827&sr=1-1> &ie=UTF8&qid=1330749827&sr=1-1 -
available on all Kindle stores and for all other ebook devices.

This is historical fiction however, and starts literally on the battle
field, 22 August 1485 after Richard III's death. My novel follows events
during the following months including recollections of Richard and the
emergence of the Tudor reign, but the story has its own plot and is
basically a crime mystery.

Good luck with everything,

Barbara Gaskell Denvil







-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Wednesday, 29 February 2012 9:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Greetings, all!





Greetings to you too, natusm, and welcome back! If the responses to your
post have been sporadic, we must plead that we all have time-consuming
interests and not a lot of spare time. However I for one like to join
Ricardian discussions because one learns so much by exchanging ideas. So,
rather belatedly, to respond to your questions .....

1. You don't say whether the books that interest you are fiction or
non-fiction. We have writers of both on this forum. Of course, if you're a
member of the Richard III Society you'll have access to society libraries,
and the parent society's Barton Library catalogue is online on their
website. On the other hand, if you just want to know who in this forum has
written what, and perhaps discuss their books with them, maybe the best
thing is for each of us to own up to our own 'oeuvre', which in my case is
just one Ricardian book, "Richard III: The Maligned King" (non-fiction).
Joan, Brian, Barbara et al - put your hands up!

2. The most prolific and entrenched anti-Richard historian de nos jours is
undoubtedly Michael Hicks.

3. The nobility in 1483-5 totalled a good many more than the individuals you
list (Woodvilles, Hastings, Buckingham and the rest), so it would be rash to
generalize that Richard's support among the nobility caved in. A better way
to put it would be that the nobles, magnates and moneyed classes, including
self-made 'new men', were increasingly occupied with their own advancement
and less concerned with the old feudal loyalties. Your studies of Henry VII
will undoubtedly have shown you that he had to take extreme measures to try
to keep such people on side during his reign. Historians like David Grummitt
are very good on the new politics of fluctuating loyalties and hedging of
bets, which didn't suddenly start with Henry VII!

Perhaps you get the impression of a rash of conspiracies and rebellions
because of the heavy concentration on such things by historians, and the way
they are brought into sharp focus by the brevity of Richard's reign. To be
accurate, only two causes of unrest can be reliably identified, and they
were separated by around a year and a half of peace and good government.

* One was the tussle for power over Edward V, which developed into
opposition to his deposition and the resultant loss of status by those whose
careers were affected. This accounts for the unrest of 1483 (the Woodvilles,
the Hastings/Rotherham/Morton conspiracy, the October Rebellion) all of
which were aimed at restoring him. In case nobody has noticed ;-), Richard
and his loyal army wiped the floor with them.

* The second was the promotion of Henry Tudor by France to destabilize the
English monarchy, which let's face it, nobody seriously expected to be
successful. It is surely not surprising that Henry's family supported this.

As for Buckingham, who knows? I believe the most accurate picture of
Buckingham's involvement is given in the Crowland Chronicle, which is
suspiciously well informed (minutely informed, if you ask me) about the
twists and turns of the October Rebellion. Beware of accounts written
decades later which were drenched in Tudor spin! It wasn't a case of
Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley supporting Buckingham - their man was
Margaret's son, Tudor. The deluded Buckingham, for whatever reason, clearly
piggybacked on to an already existing movement (the one to restore Edward
V), thinking he had what it took to become its leader in the field, and was
then unceremoniously dumped. Beyond these bare details there is only
conjecture, in which we all indulge .....
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: natusm
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:56 PM
Subject: Greetings, all!

Back in the late medieval age I was a member of this group, and I think I
allowed my subscription to lapse, as it were, on the birth of my male heir.
Since then, I have been honored to have corresponded with Robert Fripp on
his play, and I also play-tested (another kind of "play") the misnamed
Richard III: Wars of the Roses for Columbia Games. Speaking of musicals, I
am still in the toils of writing the book and lyrics for one on Henry Tudor,
in the "if you think Richard 3 was bad, wait until you see *this* guy!"
vein. I see from the recent entries that I've missed a lot in my prolonged
absence, so I'll just say hello and post some questions:

1) It seems that we have some authors represented here, and I would like to
purchase at least their Ricardian-themed works if possible. Is the
information about publications collected in an easily accessible area?

2) Are there other modern historians, like Alison Weir, who are convinced of
Richard's guilt? I think I remember David Starkey making dismissive comments
about Richard, but I'm not sure.

3) From my reading of Richard's reign, it seems that his support among the
nobility caved in continually and ultimately, as we know, disastrously. From
Edward IV's death on, he had to strive not only against the Woodvilles, but
against his brother's close friend Hastings. Then Buckingham turned on him,
with the assistance of Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley. Last, of
course, Rhys ap Thomas, both Stanley brothers, as well as others defected to
Tudor, and possibly we can throw Percy in as well.

So while the Woodville agenda is certainly clear, I've never understood why
Hastings would make common cause with his enemies against Richard, or why
Buckingham would change loyalties. Maybe these magnates are all the
exceptions rather than the rule, but I find this rash of conspiracies and
rebellions against Richard rather inexplicable.

Thanks!







Richard III
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.