In Our Time cont.
In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 10:34:45
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story, or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother". Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother". Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 10:57:24
'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here. Neither of
the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their mother's lands
and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished and
declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her, neither
she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like Richard, this
was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the lion's
share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out her
long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she had to
suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first place.
Karen Clark
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Subject: In Our Time cont.
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother
Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of
Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story,
or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown
because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews
were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother".
Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the
arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather
then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their mother's lands
and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished and
declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her, neither
she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like Richard, this
was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the lion's
share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out her
long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she had to
suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first place.
Karen Clark
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Subject: In Our Time cont.
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother
Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of
Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story,
or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown
because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews
were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother".
Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the
arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather
then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 11:59:47
She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property, more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints. None are recorded as such anywhere.
But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4 this morning!
Paul
On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here. Neither of
> the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their mother's lands
> and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished and
> declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her, neither
> she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like Richard, this
> was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the lion's
> share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out her
> long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she had to
> suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first place.
>
> Karen Clark
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Subject: In Our Time cont.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother
> Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of
> Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story,
> or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> inheritance.
> As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown
> because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews
> were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother".
> Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the
> arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather
> then the other way round.
> Paul
> who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property, more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints. None are recorded as such anywhere.
But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4 this morning!
Paul
On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here. Neither of
> the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their mother's lands
> and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished and
> declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her, neither
> she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like Richard, this
> was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the lion's
> share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out her
> long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she had to
> suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first place.
>
> Karen Clark
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Subject: In Our Time cont.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother
> Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of
> Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story,
> or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> inheritance.
> As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown
> because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews
> were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother".
> Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the
> arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather
> then the other way round.
> Paul
> who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 14:20:37
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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 , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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 , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 14:43:28
Joan
If we (collectively or individually) want to be invited to participate in
public discussions, we need to be prepared to accept that Richard wasn't
above criticism. I've noticed (here and in other forums) that some members
of the Society are prepared to twist themselves into knots trying to explain
away some of the things that are clearly documented that Richard did, or was
involved with, that don't go much to his credit. My discussion with Paul
about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
mother-in-law? Yes, he did. But Anthony Wydeville conspired to impoverish
Maud Stanhope. Neither action commends either man, but it doesn't make
Richard stand out as specially wicked and despicable. I'm striving for a
more balanced view of Richard, one that acknowledges his faults and his less
admirable actions as well as overturning the oft perceived view of the
deformed and wicked uncle. No-one's going to take us seriously if we persist
in pretending, say, that the countess of Warwick was attainted when she
wasn't, or that Hastings wasn't executed without trial. We are more likely
to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
put them into their correct context.
This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
Karen
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:20:35 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
If we (collectively or individually) want to be invited to participate in
public discussions, we need to be prepared to accept that Richard wasn't
above criticism. I've noticed (here and in other forums) that some members
of the Society are prepared to twist themselves into knots trying to explain
away some of the things that are clearly documented that Richard did, or was
involved with, that don't go much to his credit. My discussion with Paul
about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
mother-in-law? Yes, he did. But Anthony Wydeville conspired to impoverish
Maud Stanhope. Neither action commends either man, but it doesn't make
Richard stand out as specially wicked and despicable. I'm striving for a
more balanced view of Richard, one that acknowledges his faults and his less
admirable actions as well as overturning the oft perceived view of the
deformed and wicked uncle. No-one's going to take us seriously if we persist
in pretending, say, that the countess of Warwick was attainted when she
wasn't, or that Hastings wasn't executed without trial. We are more likely
to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
put them into their correct context.
This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
Karen
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:20:35 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 14:56:30
Yes! Joan or Annette?
I'd pay to see someone face-off against, say, Weir or Hicks. And with technology, there need be no travel costs, etc.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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 , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
I'd pay to see someone face-off against, say, Weir or Hicks. And with technology, there need be no travel costs, etc.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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 , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 17:03:05
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> We are more likely
> to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
> put them into their correct context.
>
> This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
>
Agree absolutely with this. The programme I thought was "okay-ish" given its traditionalist bias. The disappointment is that there were no dissenting voices; no opportunity for debate.
Some of the more vehement Ricardians do their cause no justice. But there are all sorts of extremes. I was taught history by a comparatively prominent member of the Richard III Society who thought, on balance, that Richard probably had killed his nephews. And this didn't affect his untrammelled admiration for him one bit!
Jonathan
>
> We are more likely
> to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
> put them into their correct context.
>
> This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
>
Agree absolutely with this. The programme I thought was "okay-ish" given its traditionalist bias. The disappointment is that there were no dissenting voices; no opportunity for debate.
Some of the more vehement Ricardians do their cause no justice. But there are all sorts of extremes. I was taught history by a comparatively prominent member of the Richard III Society who thought, on balance, that Richard probably had killed his nephews. And this didn't affect his untrammelled admiration for him one bit!
Jonathan
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 17:04:33
So glad to find I'm not alone!
Karen
From: Jonathan <jmcevans98@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:03:03 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> We are more likely
> to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
> put them into their correct context.
>
> This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
>
Agree absolutely with this. The programme I thought was "okay-ish" given
its traditionalist bias. The disappointment is that there were no
dissenting voices; no opportunity for debate.
Some of the more vehement Ricardians do their cause no justice. But there
are all sorts of extremes. I was taught history by a comparatively
prominent member of the Richard III Society who thought, on balance, that
Richard probably had killed his nephews. And this didn't affect his
untrammelled admiration for him one bit!
Jonathan
Karen
From: Jonathan <jmcevans98@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:03:03 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> We are more likely
> to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
> put them into their correct context.
>
> This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
>
Agree absolutely with this. The programme I thought was "okay-ish" given
its traditionalist bias. The disappointment is that there were no
dissenting voices; no opportunity for debate.
Some of the more vehement Ricardians do their cause no justice. But there
are all sorts of extremes. I was taught history by a comparatively
prominent member of the Richard III Society who thought, on balance, that
Richard probably had killed his nephews. And this didn't affect his
untrammelled admiration for him one bit!
Jonathan
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 17:10:16
for anyone who missed the programe,it's on again ,radio 4 ,9.30p.m. tonight 26th.April
________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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 , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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 , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 17:15:31
I'm going to check it out on iplayer tomorrow. I've got some podcast
friendly work on at the moment.
Karen
From: carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
for anyone who missed the programe,it's on again ,radio 4 ,9.30p.m. tonight
26th.April
________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@... <mailto:u2nohoo%40gmail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
friendly work on at the moment.
Karen
From: carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
for anyone who missed the programe,it's on again ,radio 4 ,9.30p.m. tonight
26th.April
________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@... <mailto:u2nohoo%40gmail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
"discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
been repeated so much.
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> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
None are recorded as such anywhere.
> But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
this morning!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
Neither of
> > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
mother's lands
> > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
and
> > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
neither
> > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
Richard, this
> > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
lion's
> > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
her
> > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
had to
> > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
place.
> >
> > Karen Clark
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > Reply-To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
brother
> > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
of
> > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
story,
> > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > inheritance.
> > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
crown
> > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
nephews
> > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
mother".
> > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
the
> > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
rather
> > then the other way round.
> > Paul
> > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 19:03:50
Sorry I'm a bit behindhand with things, but am in the midst of redecorating. As I recall, the historians on the programme were unduly reliant on Polydore Vergil, and several comments revealed that they hadn't done sufficient homework. For example, one of them said that the reasons underlying Richard's seizure of the throne were a muddled mixture between allegations that Edward IV was illegitimate and allegations that Edward's marriage was bigamous. This ignores a piece of written evidence currently in TNA, i.e. the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, which clearly enumerates the grounds, of which none refers to Edward's bastardy. This is corroborated 100 per cent by the Crowland chronicler, who even knew that the lady of the precontract was 'Lady Eleanor Boteler'.
It is always disappointing to hear statements declaring there was a general assumption that Richard had killed the 'princes in the Tower'. As shown in my book, the grounds for this assertion are very shaky - there is almost nothing written about it contemporaneously - certainly nothing authoritative - and the first recorded condemnation of Richard as their murderer appears in France, which a proper grown-up historian should be aware was a propaganda exercise. To say that Henry Tudor's promise to marry Elizabeth of York proves the boys were dead is quite simply swallowing Vergil unquestioningly. Admittedly one of the panel suggested that they might have survived, but quickly dismissed this alternative in favour of the traditional view. This is just plain lazy.
In Richard's favour there was some general waffling about his good intentions as a king, but IIRC just one specific quote, i.e. the notice of his death in the York Records, which was accompanied by a remark about his popularity in the north, calculated to diminish the impact. With so much debatable material, opinion and gossip quoted against him, this solitary favourable quote (of which a record has thankfully survived) seemed glaringly one-sided.
As for the affair of the Countess of Oxford, we can certainly discuss this in this forum if you like, and let's expose the facts to dissection. What I contend is that it's pretty feeble if this is all that can be cited as an early example foreshadowing Richard's ruthlessness, when land-grabs were a routine part of 15th-century acquisitiveness (see the Paston letters!). If we want early examples of ruthlessness, let's look at the execution of the Lancastrians after Tewkesbury, and weigh them against e.g. so-called 'executions' (as Paul rightly pointed out) by people like Warwick the Kingmaker and Jasper Tudor. What is monumentally surprising about historians when they talk about Richard III is that there is a trend to sit in judgement on him in a particular way that takes him right out of his mediaeval context, tut-tutting when he does things that were entirely in keeping with how kings and magnates behaved (and were expected to behave) both before, during and after his lifetime. This is not rigorous scholarship of the kind we expect from Melvyn Bragg's series - in fact it's sheer dumbing down.
However, one thing I found very pleasing. Did anyone notice that NOBODY quoted Thomas More?????
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:34 AM
Subject: In Our Time cont.
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story, or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother". Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
It is always disappointing to hear statements declaring there was a general assumption that Richard had killed the 'princes in the Tower'. As shown in my book, the grounds for this assertion are very shaky - there is almost nothing written about it contemporaneously - certainly nothing authoritative - and the first recorded condemnation of Richard as their murderer appears in France, which a proper grown-up historian should be aware was a propaganda exercise. To say that Henry Tudor's promise to marry Elizabeth of York proves the boys were dead is quite simply swallowing Vergil unquestioningly. Admittedly one of the panel suggested that they might have survived, but quickly dismissed this alternative in favour of the traditional view. This is just plain lazy.
In Richard's favour there was some general waffling about his good intentions as a king, but IIRC just one specific quote, i.e. the notice of his death in the York Records, which was accompanied by a remark about his popularity in the north, calculated to diminish the impact. With so much debatable material, opinion and gossip quoted against him, this solitary favourable quote (of which a record has thankfully survived) seemed glaringly one-sided.
As for the affair of the Countess of Oxford, we can certainly discuss this in this forum if you like, and let's expose the facts to dissection. What I contend is that it's pretty feeble if this is all that can be cited as an early example foreshadowing Richard's ruthlessness, when land-grabs were a routine part of 15th-century acquisitiveness (see the Paston letters!). If we want early examples of ruthlessness, let's look at the execution of the Lancastrians after Tewkesbury, and weigh them against e.g. so-called 'executions' (as Paul rightly pointed out) by people like Warwick the Kingmaker and Jasper Tudor. What is monumentally surprising about historians when they talk about Richard III is that there is a trend to sit in judgement on him in a particular way that takes him right out of his mediaeval context, tut-tutting when he does things that were entirely in keeping with how kings and magnates behaved (and were expected to behave) both before, during and after his lifetime. This is not rigorous scholarship of the kind we expect from Melvyn Bragg's series - in fact it's sheer dumbing down.
However, one thing I found very pleasing. Did anyone notice that NOBODY quoted Thomas More?????
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:34 AM
Subject: In Our Time cont.
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story, or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother". Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 20:29:18
On 26 Apr 2012, at 14:43, Karen Clark wrote:
> My discussion with Paul
> about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
> did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
> ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
> within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
> particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
> and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
> seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
> flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
> his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
> would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
> mother-in-law? Yes, he did.
Well I have to say Karen that avoiding your wife and her sister and mother in law falling foul of a possible act of attainder against his father in law, assuring that their ands end up under the control of those who know how to look after them, then giving your mother in law a comfortable home in her favourite castle isn't what I would describe as impoverishing her!!
Impoverish implies he stole all her goods and chattels and cast her out onto the streets. The reality was far from this.
I feel Edward did not attaint Warwick because of his brothers wives, but had to punish his estate in some way, and that resulted in the act of parliament making his widow virtually dead, thus leaving her daughters as his heirs enabling their husbands, his brothers, to pick up the rewards.
Now I personally don't see anything wrong with this, especially in view of the way Richard treated the Countess after his marriage, and as you say, this kind of acquisitiveness amongst the upper nobility was common during the era. It also ensured Richard had what the king wanted, a large holding in the north, the region Edward entrusted his youngest brother with bringing into the Yorkist fold.
I don't consider this sanctifies Richard, nor is that ever my intention, though every time he is attacked I come back at the attacker like a Ricardian Rotweiler defending his master. But I always use contemporary sources if I can, and think myself back into the fifteenth century. Quite simple sometimes, just switch off the power and light a couple of candles!! :-)
Paul
p.s. Thanks to Annette for her as ever erudite response earlier.
Richard Liveth Yet!
> My discussion with Paul
> about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
> did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
> ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
> within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
> particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
> and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
> seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
> flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
> his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
> would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
> mother-in-law? Yes, he did.
Well I have to say Karen that avoiding your wife and her sister and mother in law falling foul of a possible act of attainder against his father in law, assuring that their ands end up under the control of those who know how to look after them, then giving your mother in law a comfortable home in her favourite castle isn't what I would describe as impoverishing her!!
Impoverish implies he stole all her goods and chattels and cast her out onto the streets. The reality was far from this.
I feel Edward did not attaint Warwick because of his brothers wives, but had to punish his estate in some way, and that resulted in the act of parliament making his widow virtually dead, thus leaving her daughters as his heirs enabling their husbands, his brothers, to pick up the rewards.
Now I personally don't see anything wrong with this, especially in view of the way Richard treated the Countess after his marriage, and as you say, this kind of acquisitiveness amongst the upper nobility was common during the era. It also ensured Richard had what the king wanted, a large holding in the north, the region Edward entrusted his youngest brother with bringing into the Yorkist fold.
I don't consider this sanctifies Richard, nor is that ever my intention, though every time he is attacked I come back at the attacker like a Ricardian Rotweiler defending his master. But I always use contemporary sources if I can, and think myself back into the fifteenth century. Quite simple sometimes, just switch off the power and light a couple of candles!! :-)
Paul
p.s. Thanks to Annette for her as ever erudite response earlier.
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 22:53:06
Excellent analysis Paul. Thanks for flagging up this programme, I had forgotten about it. However, I won't listen to it when it is repeated as it will only put my blood pressure up.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 14:43, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > My discussion with Paul
> > about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
> > did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
> > ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
> > within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
> > particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
> > and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
> > seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
> > flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
> > his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
> > would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
> > mother-in-law? Yes, he did.
>
> Well I have to say Karen that avoiding your wife and her sister and mother in law falling foul of a possible act of attainder against his father in law, assuring that their ands end up under the control of those who know how to look after them, then giving your mother in law a comfortable home in her favourite castle isn't what I would describe as impoverishing her!!
> Impoverish implies he stole all her goods and chattels and cast her out onto the streets. The reality was far from this.
> I feel Edward did not attaint Warwick because of his brothers wives, but had to punish his estate in some way, and that resulted in the act of parliament making his widow virtually dead, thus leaving her daughters as his heirs enabling their husbands, his brothers, to pick up the rewards.
> Now I personally don't see anything wrong with this, especially in view of the way Richard treated the Countess after his marriage, and as you say, this kind of acquisitiveness amongst the upper nobility was common during the era. It also ensured Richard had what the king wanted, a large holding in the north, the region Edward entrusted his youngest brother with bringing into the Yorkist fold.
> I don't consider this sanctifies Richard, nor is that ever my intention, though every time he is attacked I come back at the attacker like a Ricardian Rotweiler defending his master. But I always use contemporary sources if I can, and think myself back into the fifteenth century. Quite simple sometimes, just switch off the power and light a couple of candles!! :-)
> Paul
>
> p.s. Thanks to Annette for her as ever erudite response earlier.
>
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2012, at 14:43, Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > My discussion with Paul
> > about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
> > did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
> > ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
> > within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
> > particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
> > and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
> > seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
> > flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
> > his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
> > would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
> > mother-in-law? Yes, he did.
>
> Well I have to say Karen that avoiding your wife and her sister and mother in law falling foul of a possible act of attainder against his father in law, assuring that their ands end up under the control of those who know how to look after them, then giving your mother in law a comfortable home in her favourite castle isn't what I would describe as impoverishing her!!
> Impoverish implies he stole all her goods and chattels and cast her out onto the streets. The reality was far from this.
> I feel Edward did not attaint Warwick because of his brothers wives, but had to punish his estate in some way, and that resulted in the act of parliament making his widow virtually dead, thus leaving her daughters as his heirs enabling their husbands, his brothers, to pick up the rewards.
> Now I personally don't see anything wrong with this, especially in view of the way Richard treated the Countess after his marriage, and as you say, this kind of acquisitiveness amongst the upper nobility was common during the era. It also ensured Richard had what the king wanted, a large holding in the north, the region Edward entrusted his youngest brother with bringing into the Yorkist fold.
> I don't consider this sanctifies Richard, nor is that ever my intention, though every time he is attacked I come back at the attacker like a Ricardian Rotweiler defending his master. But I always use contemporary sources if I can, and think myself back into the fifteenth century. Quite simple sometimes, just switch off the power and light a couple of candles!! :-)
> Paul
>
> p.s. Thanks to Annette for her as ever erudite response earlier.
>
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-26 23:02:33
The main thing about Richard's story is that you have to tell it all. You can't just pick and choose what suits the particular traditionalist historian on the day. I would recommend that all traditionalists read " Maligned King" then they won't keep making these mistakes when they are on the radio or on television.
Loyaulte me lie
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry I'm a bit behindhand with things, but am in the midst of redecorating. As I recall, the historians on the programme were unduly reliant on Polydore Vergil, and several comments revealed that they hadn't done sufficient homework. For example, one of them said that the reasons underlying Richard's seizure of the throne were a muddled mixture between allegations that Edward IV was illegitimate and allegations that Edward's marriage was bigamous. This ignores a piece of written evidence currently in TNA, i.e. the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, which clearly enumerates the grounds, of which none refers to Edward's bastardy. This is corroborated 100 per cent by the Crowland chronicler, who even knew that the lady of the precontract was 'Lady Eleanor Boteler'.
>
> It is always disappointing to hear statements declaring there was a general assumption that Richard had killed the 'princes in the Tower'. As shown in my book, the grounds for this assertion are very shaky - there is almost nothing written about it contemporaneously - certainly nothing authoritative - and the first recorded condemnation of Richard as their murderer appears in France, which a proper grown-up historian should be aware was a propaganda exercise. To say that Henry Tudor's promise to marry Elizabeth of York proves the boys were dead is quite simply swallowing Vergil unquestioningly. Admittedly one of the panel suggested that they might have survived, but quickly dismissed this alternative in favour of the traditional view. This is just plain lazy.
>
> In Richard's favour there was some general waffling about his good intentions as a king, but IIRC just one specific quote, i.e. the notice of his death in the York Records, which was accompanied by a remark about his popularity in the north, calculated to diminish the impact. With so much debatable material, opinion and gossip quoted against him, this solitary favourable quote (of which a record has thankfully survived) seemed glaringly one-sided.
>
> As for the affair of the Countess of Oxford, we can certainly discuss this in this forum if you like, and let's expose the facts to dissection. What I contend is that it's pretty feeble if this is all that can be cited as an early example foreshadowing Richard's ruthlessness, when land-grabs were a routine part of 15th-century acquisitiveness (see the Paston letters!). If we want early examples of ruthlessness, let's look at the execution of the Lancastrians after Tewkesbury, and weigh them against e.g. so-called 'executions' (as Paul rightly pointed out) by people like Warwick the Kingmaker and Jasper Tudor. What is monumentally surprising about historians when they talk about Richard III is that there is a trend to sit in judgement on him in a particular way that takes him right out of his mediaeval context, tut-tutting when he does things that were entirely in keeping with how kings and magnates behaved (and were expected to behave) both before, during and after his lifetime. This is not rigorous scholarship of the kind we expect from Melvyn Bragg's series - in fact it's sheer dumbing down.
>
> However, one thing I found very pleasing. Did anyone notice that NOBODY quoted Thomas More?????
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:34 AM
> Subject: In Our Time cont.
>
>
>
> Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story, or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful inheritance.
> As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother". Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather then the other way round.
> Paul
> who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Loyaulte me lie
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry I'm a bit behindhand with things, but am in the midst of redecorating. As I recall, the historians on the programme were unduly reliant on Polydore Vergil, and several comments revealed that they hadn't done sufficient homework. For example, one of them said that the reasons underlying Richard's seizure of the throne were a muddled mixture between allegations that Edward IV was illegitimate and allegations that Edward's marriage was bigamous. This ignores a piece of written evidence currently in TNA, i.e. the Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius, which clearly enumerates the grounds, of which none refers to Edward's bastardy. This is corroborated 100 per cent by the Crowland chronicler, who even knew that the lady of the precontract was 'Lady Eleanor Boteler'.
>
> It is always disappointing to hear statements declaring there was a general assumption that Richard had killed the 'princes in the Tower'. As shown in my book, the grounds for this assertion are very shaky - there is almost nothing written about it contemporaneously - certainly nothing authoritative - and the first recorded condemnation of Richard as their murderer appears in France, which a proper grown-up historian should be aware was a propaganda exercise. To say that Henry Tudor's promise to marry Elizabeth of York proves the boys were dead is quite simply swallowing Vergil unquestioningly. Admittedly one of the panel suggested that they might have survived, but quickly dismissed this alternative in favour of the traditional view. This is just plain lazy.
>
> In Richard's favour there was some general waffling about his good intentions as a king, but IIRC just one specific quote, i.e. the notice of his death in the York Records, which was accompanied by a remark about his popularity in the north, calculated to diminish the impact. With so much debatable material, opinion and gossip quoted against him, this solitary favourable quote (of which a record has thankfully survived) seemed glaringly one-sided.
>
> As for the affair of the Countess of Oxford, we can certainly discuss this in this forum if you like, and let's expose the facts to dissection. What I contend is that it's pretty feeble if this is all that can be cited as an early example foreshadowing Richard's ruthlessness, when land-grabs were a routine part of 15th-century acquisitiveness (see the Paston letters!). If we want early examples of ruthlessness, let's look at the execution of the Lancastrians after Tewkesbury, and weigh them against e.g. so-called 'executions' (as Paul rightly pointed out) by people like Warwick the Kingmaker and Jasper Tudor. What is monumentally surprising about historians when they talk about Richard III is that there is a trend to sit in judgement on him in a particular way that takes him right out of his mediaeval context, tut-tutting when he does things that were entirely in keeping with how kings and magnates behaved (and were expected to behave) both before, during and after his lifetime. This is not rigorous scholarship of the kind we expect from Melvyn Bragg's series - in fact it's sheer dumbing down.
>
> However, one thing I found very pleasing. Did anyone notice that NOBODY quoted Thomas More?????
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To: RichardIIISociety forum
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:34 AM
> Subject: In Our Time cont.
>
>
>
> Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story, or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful inheritance.
> As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother". Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather then the other way round.
> Paul
> who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-27 01:19:29
Paul said:
>Well I have to say Karen that avoiding your wife and her sister and mother in
law falling foul of a possible act of attainder against his father in law,
assuring that their ands end up under the control of those who know how to look
after them, then giving your mother in law a comfortable home in her favourite
castle isn't what I would describe as impoverishing her!!<
Paul, you need to understand the laws of attainder. Had any of the Nevills
been attainted after Barnet, their wealth and titles would have gone to the
crown. This is NOT what Edward IV or his brothers wanted. They wanted to
find a way to get that wealth and those titles into their own hands.
Gloucester did NOT save anyone from attainder. The person who 'knew how to
look after' that wealth and those titles was the countess of Warwick. She
was stripped of them illegally. And yes, all her goods and chattels, her
lands, manors, money, titles. Everything. So 'impoverish' is exactly the
right word.
Please see my points below. I tried posting this twice last night, but the
gremlins would not let it pass.
1. The countess of Warwick took sanctuary when she heard of her husband's
death and was kept there, against her will, while Edward IV and his brothers
set about stripping her, illegally, of everything she had.
2. If Warwick or his countess (or both) had been attainted in parliament
(there is no such thing as a 'more or less' act of attainder) the forfeited
property and titles would have gone to the crown, Isobel and Anne would not
have been able to 'inherit' them. That's the whole point of attainder.
3. Neither Warwick nor Montagu, nor either of their widows was attainted in
parliament. Not 'more' or 'less'. They weren't attainted at all.
4. I don't care how much 'comfort' the countess of Warwick might have lived
in at Middleham. She shouldn't have been forced to live there at all, and
forced she was. She had no choice. All her property was taken from her. All
of it. Illegally.
5. She was declared dead in parliament, with her daughters to inherit her
property and their father's, their husbands named their heirs and with a
special clause for Richard and Anne, stating that if they ever divorced, the
rules of inheritance would apply as if she'd died, that is, he'd get to keep
her 'rightful inheritance'. All of the property, wealth & titles belonging,
individually and collectively, to the countess of Warwick and her late
husband were taken from her at that point. Not separately, not his first
then hers, but both together. Warwick's will hasn't survived (not
surprisingly), but I suspect that someone read it very carefully at the
time. Clearly she was recognised to be Warwick's main heir (with regard to
his Nevill wealth and their joint wealth).
6. I doubt whether Middleham was the countess's favourite house. I suspect
that was Warwick castle.
7. As for no complaints being recorded, I refer you to this:
http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
ck-wife-widow/
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:29:08 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
On 26 Apr 2012, at 14:43, Karen Clark wrote:
> My discussion with Paul
> about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
> did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
> ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
> within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
> particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
> and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
> seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
> flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
> his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
> would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
> mother-in-law? Yes, he did.
Well I have to say Karen that avoiding your wife and her sister and mother
in law falling foul of a possible act of attainder against his father in
law, assuring that their ands end up under the control of those who know how
to look after them, then giving your mother in law a comfortable home in her
favourite castle isn't what I would describe as impoverishing her!!
Impoverish implies he stole all her goods and chattels and cast her out onto
the streets. The reality was far from this.
I feel Edward did not attaint Warwick because of his brothers wives, but had
to punish his estate in some way, and that resulted in the act of parliament
making his widow virtually dead, thus leaving her daughters as his heirs
enabling their husbands, his brothers, to pick up the rewards.
Now I personally don't see anything wrong with this, especially in view of
the way Richard treated the Countess after his marriage, and as you say,
this kind of acquisitiveness amongst the upper nobility was common during
the era. It also ensured Richard had what the king wanted, a large holding
in the north, the region Edward entrusted his youngest brother with bringing
into the Yorkist fold.
I don't consider this sanctifies Richard, nor is that ever my intention,
though every time he is attacked I come back at the attacker like a
Ricardian Rotweiler defending his master. But I always use contemporary
sources if I can, and think myself back into the fifteenth century. Quite
simple sometimes, just switch off the power and light a couple of candles!!
:-)
Paul
p.s. Thanks to Annette for her as ever erudite response earlier.
Richard Liveth Yet!
>Well I have to say Karen that avoiding your wife and her sister and mother in
law falling foul of a possible act of attainder against his father in law,
assuring that their ands end up under the control of those who know how to look
after them, then giving your mother in law a comfortable home in her favourite
castle isn't what I would describe as impoverishing her!!<
Paul, you need to understand the laws of attainder. Had any of the Nevills
been attainted after Barnet, their wealth and titles would have gone to the
crown. This is NOT what Edward IV or his brothers wanted. They wanted to
find a way to get that wealth and those titles into their own hands.
Gloucester did NOT save anyone from attainder. The person who 'knew how to
look after' that wealth and those titles was the countess of Warwick. She
was stripped of them illegally. And yes, all her goods and chattels, her
lands, manors, money, titles. Everything. So 'impoverish' is exactly the
right word.
Please see my points below. I tried posting this twice last night, but the
gremlins would not let it pass.
1. The countess of Warwick took sanctuary when she heard of her husband's
death and was kept there, against her will, while Edward IV and his brothers
set about stripping her, illegally, of everything she had.
2. If Warwick or his countess (or both) had been attainted in parliament
(there is no such thing as a 'more or less' act of attainder) the forfeited
property and titles would have gone to the crown, Isobel and Anne would not
have been able to 'inherit' them. That's the whole point of attainder.
3. Neither Warwick nor Montagu, nor either of their widows was attainted in
parliament. Not 'more' or 'less'. They weren't attainted at all.
4. I don't care how much 'comfort' the countess of Warwick might have lived
in at Middleham. She shouldn't have been forced to live there at all, and
forced she was. She had no choice. All her property was taken from her. All
of it. Illegally.
5. She was declared dead in parliament, with her daughters to inherit her
property and their father's, their husbands named their heirs and with a
special clause for Richard and Anne, stating that if they ever divorced, the
rules of inheritance would apply as if she'd died, that is, he'd get to keep
her 'rightful inheritance'. All of the property, wealth & titles belonging,
individually and collectively, to the countess of Warwick and her late
husband were taken from her at that point. Not separately, not his first
then hers, but both together. Warwick's will hasn't survived (not
surprisingly), but I suspect that someone read it very carefully at the
time. Clearly she was recognised to be Warwick's main heir (with regard to
his Nevill wealth and their joint wealth).
6. I doubt whether Middleham was the countess's favourite house. I suspect
that was Warwick castle.
7. As for no complaints being recorded, I refer you to this:
http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
ck-wife-widow/
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:29:08 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
On 26 Apr 2012, at 14:43, Karen Clark wrote:
> My discussion with Paul
> about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
> did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
> ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
> within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
> particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
> and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
> seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
> flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
> his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
> would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
> mother-in-law? Yes, he did.
Well I have to say Karen that avoiding your wife and her sister and mother
in law falling foul of a possible act of attainder against his father in
law, assuring that their ands end up under the control of those who know how
to look after them, then giving your mother in law a comfortable home in her
favourite castle isn't what I would describe as impoverishing her!!
Impoverish implies he stole all her goods and chattels and cast her out onto
the streets. The reality was far from this.
I feel Edward did not attaint Warwick because of his brothers wives, but had
to punish his estate in some way, and that resulted in the act of parliament
making his widow virtually dead, thus leaving her daughters as his heirs
enabling their husbands, his brothers, to pick up the rewards.
Now I personally don't see anything wrong with this, especially in view of
the way Richard treated the Countess after his marriage, and as you say,
this kind of acquisitiveness amongst the upper nobility was common during
the era. It also ensured Richard had what the king wanted, a large holding
in the north, the region Edward entrusted his youngest brother with bringing
into the Yorkist fold.
I don't consider this sanctifies Richard, nor is that ever my intention,
though every time he is attacked I come back at the attacker like a
Ricardian Rotweiler defending his master. But I always use contemporary
sources if I can, and think myself back into the fifteenth century. Quite
simple sometimes, just switch off the power and light a couple of candles!!
:-)
Paul
p.s. Thanks to Annette for her as ever erudite response earlier.
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-27 02:19:30
I'm listening to the In Our Time program and so far, 17 minutes in, I've
found nothing to horrify me. I'm fascinated by the differences in
perspective among us!
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Subject: In Our Time cont.
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother
Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of
Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story,
or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown
because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews
were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother".
Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the
arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather
then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
found nothing to horrify me. I'm fascinated by the differences in
perspective among us!
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Subject: In Our Time cont.
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother
Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of
Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story,
or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown
because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews
were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother".
Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the
arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather
then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-27 09:07:05
Yes, we all have different perspectives, thank goodness. Personally I like to steer clear of endowing mediaeval persons with ideas, aspirations and motivations that can't possibly be verified. In the Middle Ages it was an unfair world, the strong preyed on the weak, and property was taken away from the innocent as well as the guilty. With due respect to the novelists among us, who in the 21st century can realistically place themselves in the shoes of any of these people? Historians, unfortunately, tend to take sides and present their favoured individuals favourably, and their villains villainously. Let us at least look at things with clearer eyes.
Some people led lives of luxury and eventually died in their beds. Many of these were women. Other people led lives of penury and near-starvation, only to be killed or maimed in battles that were none of their concern. Many of these were men. Some people were accused of trumped-up charges and executed. Some people suffered horribly for their religion. Due to the scant evidence that has come down to us, we tend mainly to hear about the grand personages who were involved in the Great Game - which went hand in hand with great wealth, great estates and great privilege. And, in the case of the ruling party, great responsibility too. I can't think of any monarch of England who didn't commit SOME action which would be offensive to our present-day sensibilities. Heavens above, even our present blameless queen is constantly under attack!
So while it is true to say that Edward IV stripped a number of people (guilty or innocent) of what they considered their rightful property, let us remember that the country he inherited had erupted into civil war after being bankrupted by his predecessor; and by the way, one of the reasons he needed to provide for his own family in nefarious ways was because his father's wealth had been plundered during the previous regime. Sad to say, when it came to a king propping up his reign and providing for the succession, the widows of wealthy rebels didn't stand much of a chance.
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
I'm listening to the In Our Time program and so far, 17 minutes in, I've
found nothing to horrify me. I'm fascinated by the differences in
perspective among us!
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Subject: In Our Time cont.
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother
Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of
Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story,
or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown
because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews
were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother".
Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the
arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather
then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Some people led lives of luxury and eventually died in their beds. Many of these were women. Other people led lives of penury and near-starvation, only to be killed or maimed in battles that were none of their concern. Many of these were men. Some people were accused of trumped-up charges and executed. Some people suffered horribly for their religion. Due to the scant evidence that has come down to us, we tend mainly to hear about the grand personages who were involved in the Great Game - which went hand in hand with great wealth, great estates and great privilege. And, in the case of the ruling party, great responsibility too. I can't think of any monarch of England who didn't commit SOME action which would be offensive to our present-day sensibilities. Heavens above, even our present blameless queen is constantly under attack!
So while it is true to say that Edward IV stripped a number of people (guilty or innocent) of what they considered their rightful property, let us remember that the country he inherited had erupted into civil war after being bankrupted by his predecessor; and by the way, one of the reasons he needed to provide for his own family in nefarious ways was because his father's wealth had been plundered during the previous regime. Sad to say, when it came to a king propping up his reign and providing for the succession, the widows of wealthy rebels didn't stand much of a chance.
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
I'm listening to the In Our Time program and so far, 17 minutes in, I've
found nothing to horrify me. I'm fascinated by the differences in
perspective among us!
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Subject: In Our Time cont.
Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his brother
Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess of
Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular story,
or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
inheritance.
As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the crown
because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his nephews
were, because Edward had been married before he married their mother".
Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of the
arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along, rather
then the other way round.
Paul
who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-27 11:55:09
For the record let me say I agree with Karen too.
It's important for Ricardians to take - and to be seen to take - a balanced, evidence based, view.
--- In , "Jonathan" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
>
> > We are more likely
> > to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
> > put them into their correct context.
> >
> > This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
> >
>
> Agree absolutely with this. The programme I thought was "okay-ish" given its traditionalist bias. The disappointment is that there were no dissenting voices; no opportunity for debate.
>
> Some of the more vehement Ricardians do their cause no justice. But there are all sorts of extremes. I was taught history by a comparatively prominent member of the Richard III Society who thought, on balance, that Richard probably had killed his nephews. And this didn't affect his untrammelled admiration for him one bit!
>
> Jonathan
>
It's important for Ricardians to take - and to be seen to take - a balanced, evidence based, view.
--- In , "Jonathan" <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
>
> > We are more likely
> > to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
> > put them into their correct context.
> >
> > This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
> >
>
> Agree absolutely with this. The programme I thought was "okay-ish" given its traditionalist bias. The disappointment is that there were no dissenting voices; no opportunity for debate.
>
> Some of the more vehement Ricardians do their cause no justice. But there are all sorts of extremes. I was taught history by a comparatively prominent member of the Richard III Society who thought, on balance, that Richard probably had killed his nephews. And this didn't affect his untrammelled admiration for him one bit!
>
> Jonathan
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-27 14:45:51
I think you wrote extremely well.
I've never met an angel or a devil, as far as I know; we all have faults.
I'm not sure that Richard III even at his most lurid in some of the accounts by his worst detractors could match some of the atrocities of the 20th / 21st century: aerial bombing, rape, torture, genocides.
If you see us as a species of animal, I think you have to say that we aren't a very pleasant one.
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Joan
>
> If we (collectively or individually) want to be invited to participate in
> public discussions, we need to be prepared to accept that Richard wasn't
> above criticism. I've noticed (here and in other forums) that some members
> of the Society are prepared to twist themselves into knots trying to explain
> away some of the things that are clearly documented that Richard did, or was
> involved with, that don't go much to his credit. My discussion with Paul
> about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
> did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
> ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
> within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
> particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
> and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
> seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
> flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
> his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
> would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
> mother-in-law? Yes, he did. But Anthony Wydeville conspired to impoverish
> Maud Stanhope. Neither action commends either man, but it doesn't make
> Richard stand out as specially wicked and despicable. I'm striving for a
> more balanced view of Richard, one that acknowledges his faults and his less
> admirable actions as well as overturning the oft perceived view of the
> deformed and wicked uncle. No-one's going to take us seriously if we persist
> in pretending, say, that the countess of Warwick was attainted when she
> wasn't, or that Hastings wasn't executed without trial. We are more likely
> to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
> put them into their correct context.
>
> This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
>
> Karen
>
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:20:35 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
> motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
> be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
> "discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
> arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
> statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
> been repeated so much.
>
> 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> , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
> the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> > The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
> more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
> their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
> she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
> None are recorded as such anywhere.
> > But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
> this morning!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
> Neither of
> > > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
> mother's lands
> > > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
> and
> > > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
> neither
> > > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
> Richard, this
> > > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
> lion's
> > > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
> her
> > > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
> had to
> > > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
> place.
> > >
> > > Karen Clark
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@
> > > Reply-To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
> brother
> > > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
> of
> > > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
> story,
> > > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > > inheritance.
> > > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
> crown
> > > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
> nephews
> > > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
> mother".
> > > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
> the
> > > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
> rather
> > > then the other way round.
> > > Paul
> > > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I've never met an angel or a devil, as far as I know; we all have faults.
I'm not sure that Richard III even at his most lurid in some of the accounts by his worst detractors could match some of the atrocities of the 20th / 21st century: aerial bombing, rape, torture, genocides.
If you see us as a species of animal, I think you have to say that we aren't a very pleasant one.
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Joan
>
> If we (collectively or individually) want to be invited to participate in
> public discussions, we need to be prepared to accept that Richard wasn't
> above criticism. I've noticed (here and in other forums) that some members
> of the Society are prepared to twist themselves into knots trying to explain
> away some of the things that are clearly documented that Richard did, or was
> involved with, that don't go much to his credit. My discussion with Paul
> about the countess of Warwick is a case in point. We need to say,"Yes, he
> did this bad thing. It's right there in the primary sources, contemporary
> ones, and we can't resile from that." But we can then contextualise that
> within the times, within the particular psychology of Edward's court and
> particularly, as Brian says, within the framework of Medieval English kings
> and nobility. A lot of the time, Society members aren't listened to or taken
> seriously as we are perceived to be attempting to sanctify a man who was as
> flawed as any other of his time, who operated within the mores and values of
> his time, who found himself having to do things that we of the 21st century
> would never even consider. Did Richard conspire to impoverish his
> mother-in-law? Yes, he did. But Anthony Wydeville conspired to impoverish
> Maud Stanhope. Neither action commends either man, but it doesn't make
> Richard stand out as specially wicked and despicable. I'm striving for a
> more balanced view of Richard, one that acknowledges his faults and his less
> admirable actions as well as overturning the oft perceived view of the
> deformed and wicked uncle. No-one's going to take us seriously if we persist
> in pretending, say, that the countess of Warwick was attainted when she
> wasn't, or that Hastings wasn't executed without trial. We are more likely
> to be taken seriously if we accept these things (and others) and attempt to
> put them into their correct context.
>
> This is my position. I may well be quite alone in it, but there it is.
>
> Karen
>
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:20:35 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time cont.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Whether or not we agree on what Richard did or didn't do, his
> motivations, etc., we are pretty much preaching to the choir. What would
> be nice is if we could come up with a plan that gets us invited to these
> "discussions/debates" where we can show how many of the traditionalists
> arguments are based on fictions--intentional lies or unsubstantiated
> statements that have come to be accepted as true just because they've
> been repeated so much.
>
> 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> , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > She kept her title, and lived in comfort with her younger daughter in
> the countess' favourite home of Middleham?
> > The Act of Parliament declared her dead in respect of her property,
> more or less an act of attainder against Warwick, passing his lands onto
> their daughters, and therefore of course the York brothers. I wonder how
> she really thought of the arrangement? I doubt she had many complaints.
> None are recorded as such anywhere.
> > But this is part of the "discussion" that did not happen on Radio 4
> this morning!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:57, Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > > 'His wife's rightful inheritance'. Sorry, I have to step in here.
> Neither of
> > > the Nevill sisters, or their husbands, had any right to their
> mother's lands
> > > and titles. The countess of Warwick was systematically impoverished
> and
> > > declared dead in parliament. No charges were ever laid against her,
> neither
> > > she nor the earl of Warwick were attained. As much as I like
> Richard, this
> > > was a particularly shabby piece of work that the three York brothers
> > > colluded in (Clarence and Gloucester fighting bitterly to get the
> lion's
> > > share). The countess of Warwick should have been allowed to live out
> her
> > > long widowhood, her wealth, property and titles intact. Instead, she
> had to
> > > suffer the charity of those who had taken it from her in the first
> place.
> > >
> > > Karen Clark
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@
> > > Reply-To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:32 +0100
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: In Our Time cont.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard showed his ruthlessness early on in the way he fought his
> brother
> > > Clarence over the Neville lands, and his treatment of the Countess
> of
> > > Oxford. No mention of her son maybe having a hand in that particular
> story,
> > > or that in the former Richard was fighting for his wife's rightful
> > > inheritance.
> > > As for 1483, " some confusion as to whether he was claiming the
> crown
> > > because his brother Edward had been illegitimate or because his
> nephews
> > > were, because Edward had been married before he married their
> mother".
> > > Nothing about the pre-contract, nothing to counter the stupidity of
> the
> > > arguments put forward, nothing approaching Annette Carson's unbiased
> > > diagnosis of the events showing how events propelled Richard along,
> rather
> > > then the other way round.
> > > Paul
> > > who you can tell is a bit pi**ed off by this so-called discussion!
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: In Our Time cont.
2012-04-28 08:08:35
Extract from Melvyn Bragg's newsletter:
A few after the programme reflections. One of the reasons, I was told, that the evidence for domestic wars is not as plentiful as that for foreign wars is that foreign wars were audited by the Exchequer, who liked to put down what every single man was paid and when he was paid and who he was, and so for foreign wars we have a very good idea of numbers, of names, of positions in society. For domestic wars there was a war chest and a noble would come along and ask for money to help him bring his men to battle, and the war chest would be opened, coins would be passed over and a bit of paper would change hands as a receipt. Most of these bits of paper, it turns out, disappeared.
It was also pointed out that the fighting in medieval wars was very often done by a handful of people who liked fighting and were trained to fight. They were trained troops and to manipulate a horse in full armour, with weapons to hand, needed a great deal of training and the will to kill had to be cultivated. This could extend down the scale, especially with bowmen, because at that time in the fifteenth century all adult men had to do archery practice in the towns as well as in the villages, and we know that they did because of reports that we have ('we' being the historians) of the accidents that occurred!
One of the contributors said that household retainers were very important to the lord leading his troops into the main throng of battle. They were like a mafia group who had great loyalty to each other - which came way before anything else - and that cohesion could be a tremendously important factor.
Lots of talk about longbows being very slowly overtaken by guns. There's a famous painting of knights in full armour firing guns from the shoulder in the 1470s in Burgundy. Knights in full armour with guns were also common in Germany. But the transition from longbows to guns took a long time. Longbows were still taken into the field of battle in the 1560s. Even at that time they had a faster rate of fire than guns and were more accurate. Unfortunately, they could not pierce armour which is where guns trumped them. There's a painting, I was told, of a knight in a field walking around like a porcupine with arrows coming out of his armour all over the place, but he, snugly inside the metal, unhurt.
Another reason for the difficulties in finding the battlefield around Bosworth was that the soil is very acidic and therefore arrowheads, which are a great indicator of numbers and so on, were not preserved.
And finally Shakespeare, who we did not get around to, may well have modelled his character of Richard III on a book by Thomas More, who himself saw Richard III as a model monster.
A few after the programme reflections. One of the reasons, I was told, that the evidence for domestic wars is not as plentiful as that for foreign wars is that foreign wars were audited by the Exchequer, who liked to put down what every single man was paid and when he was paid and who he was, and so for foreign wars we have a very good idea of numbers, of names, of positions in society. For domestic wars there was a war chest and a noble would come along and ask for money to help him bring his men to battle, and the war chest would be opened, coins would be passed over and a bit of paper would change hands as a receipt. Most of these bits of paper, it turns out, disappeared.
It was also pointed out that the fighting in medieval wars was very often done by a handful of people who liked fighting and were trained to fight. They were trained troops and to manipulate a horse in full armour, with weapons to hand, needed a great deal of training and the will to kill had to be cultivated. This could extend down the scale, especially with bowmen, because at that time in the fifteenth century all adult men had to do archery practice in the towns as well as in the villages, and we know that they did because of reports that we have ('we' being the historians) of the accidents that occurred!
One of the contributors said that household retainers were very important to the lord leading his troops into the main throng of battle. They were like a mafia group who had great loyalty to each other - which came way before anything else - and that cohesion could be a tremendously important factor.
Lots of talk about longbows being very slowly overtaken by guns. There's a famous painting of knights in full armour firing guns from the shoulder in the 1470s in Burgundy. Knights in full armour with guns were also common in Germany. But the transition from longbows to guns took a long time. Longbows were still taken into the field of battle in the 1560s. Even at that time they had a faster rate of fire than guns and were more accurate. Unfortunately, they could not pierce armour which is where guns trumped them. There's a painting, I was told, of a knight in a field walking around like a porcupine with arrows coming out of his armour all over the place, but he, snugly inside the metal, unhurt.
Another reason for the difficulties in finding the battlefield around Bosworth was that the soil is very acidic and therefore arrowheads, which are a great indicator of numbers and so on, were not preserved.
And finally Shakespeare, who we did not get around to, may well have modelled his character of Richard III on a book by Thomas More, who himself saw Richard III as a model monster.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.