Where are the Ricardians?

I have been reading this list for the last few weeks and it seems
most of the posters are out to prove Richard III WAS a villian! I
do not think he was "without sin" but I'm sorry that this forum has
been given over to those who would continue to look for reasons to
trash him. According to recent posts he was either mentally ill,
sexually deviant or worse. Where are the reasoned arguments? Where
is the supporting research? Why are we going over all same old
stuff?
I guess this has turned into a forum for peopole to work out
their own issues using Richard as a foil. Are there any people on
this list who think that Richard III was a man worth defending? If
you think he was such a bad character, why don't you start a list
called the "Anti-Richard III Forum"? Then you could go on about bi-
polar disorder and buggering as much as you want.
Am I alone in feeling this way?

Janet

At 03:54 PM 1/18/03 -0000, you wrote:

> I guess this has turned into a forum for peopole to work out
>their own issues using Richard as a foil. Are there any people on
>this list who think that Richard III was a man worth defending? If
>you think he was such a bad character, why don't you start a list
>called the "Anti-Richard III Forum"? Then you could go on about bi-
>polar disorder and buggering as much as you want.

>Am I alone in feeling this way?

Yes and no. One of the good things about having this as an open forum is
that anyone can come in with an opinion about Richard III and, one hopes,
have it answered in a reasoned and respectful fashion by others.

As most people know, I am neither "for" Richard nor "anti" Richard. I am of
the opinion that the evidence we have is scanty, ill-informed, and possibly
biased -- all to the point that it's difficult to rely on any of it. Am I
willing to say that Richard was responsible for the untimely deaths of his
nephews? No. Am I willing to say that he didn't? No. We don't know who did
it or even what "it" was.

Am I willing to say that the evidence doesn't support the old traditional
view of a hunchback who started plotting to get the throne in 1471, and
that a continued reassessment of his life, character, and reign is a good
thing? You bet. In my book, that makes me a Ricardian.

One of the best things that Ricardians can do on this forum is to state
their/our case in a reasoned fashion, without recourse to name-calling or
invective. In my opinion, of course. As a Ricardian, I'd prefer to let the
anti-Richards embarrass themselves by displaying a lack of intellectual
rigor and/or manners, but I'd like to see the Ricardians all be paragons of
chivalry [*smile*]. By our words shall ye know us...

So yes, I think the Ricardians should speak up and no, I don't think it's
necessary to chase all the anti-Richards off the forum. A healthy exchange
of viewpoints keeps us all sharp and on our toes.

I also think that as long as we have new people coming to the internet or
to the Ricardian controversy we'll continue to go over the same old stuff.
It's a bit like being on a bicycle team -- one of the "old hands" can be at
the front of the line fighting the wind resistance while others are further
to the back in the slipstream catching their breaths.

Just my two cents' worth. Others' opinions may vary. While I'm on the
subject of my opinions, though, I think all that business about Richard
being neurotic, bipolar, etc., is based on an imperfect understanding of
the customs of fifteenth-century English nobility and gentry and the way
things worked back then.

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

Eloquent and reasoned as ever, Laura. I couldn't have said it
better myself (and I didn't!) But I get tired of having to listen
to newbies go over the same old ground. I know I should be quoting
sources and sending them to livbraries instead of spouting off.
Must be a bi-polar seizure coming on.

Janet


--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 03:54 PM 1/18/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
> > I guess this has turned into a forum for peopole to work out
> >their own issues using Richard as a foil. Are there any people
on
> >this list who think that Richard III was a man worth defending?
If
> >you think he was such a bad character, why don't you start a list
> >called the "Anti-Richard III Forum"? Then you could go on about
bi-
> >polar disorder and buggering as much as you want.
>
> >Am I alone in feeling this way?
>
> Yes and no. One of the good things about having this as an open
forum is
> that anyone can come in with an opinion about Richard III and, one
hopes,
> have it answered in a reasoned and respectful fashion by others.
>
> As most people know, I am neither "for" Richard nor "anti"
Richard. I am of
> the opinion that the evidence we have is scanty, ill-informed, and
possibly
> biased -- all to the point that it's difficult to rely on any of
it. Am I
> willing to say that Richard was responsible for the untimely
deaths of his
> nephews? No. Am I willing to say that he didn't? No. We don't know
who did
> it or even what "it" was.
>
> Am I willing to say that the evidence doesn't support the old
traditional
> view of a hunchback who started plotting to get the throne in
1471, and
> that a continued reassessment of his life, character, and reign is
a good
> thing? You bet. In my book, that makes me a Ricardian.
>
> One of the best things that Ricardians can do on this forum is to
state
> their/our case in a reasoned fashion, without recourse to name-
calling or
> invective. In my opinion, of course. As a Ricardian, I'd prefer to
let the
> anti-Richards embarrass themselves by displaying a lack of
intellectual
> rigor and/or manners, but I'd like to see the Ricardians all be
paragons of
> chivalry [*smile*]. By our words shall ye know us...
>
> So yes, I think the Ricardians should speak up and no, I don't
think it's
> necessary to chase all the anti-Richards off the forum. A healthy
exchange
> of viewpoints keeps us all sharp and on our toes.
>
> I also think that as long as we have new people coming to the
internet or
> to the Ricardian controversy we'll continue to go over the same
old stuff.
> It's a bit like being on a bicycle team -- one of the "old hands"
can be at
> the front of the line fighting the wind resistance while others
are further
> to the back in the slipstream catching their breaths.
>
> Just my two cents' worth. Others' opinions may vary. While I'm on
the
> subject of my opinions, though, I think all that business about
Richard
> being neurotic, bipolar, etc., is based on an imperfect
understanding of
> the customs of fifteenth-century English nobility and gentry and
the way
> things worked back then.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

Oh, if any one wants to respond to my outburst...kindly do it off-
list and spare all the long-suffering Ricardians on this one.
JAnet




-- In , "Janet
<forevere@c...>" <forevere@c...> wrote:
> Eloquent and reasoned as ever, Laura. I couldn't have said it
> better myself (and I didn't!) But I get tired of having to listen
> to newbies go over the same old ground. I know I should be
quoting
> sources and sending them to livbraries instead of spouting off.
> Must be a bi-polar seizure coming on.
>
> Janet
>
>
> --- In , Laura Blanchard
> <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > At 03:54 PM 1/18/03 -0000, you wrote:
> >
> > > I guess this has turned into a forum for peopole to work
out
> > >their own issues using Richard as a foil. Are there any people
> on
> > >this list who think that Richard III was a man worth
defending?
> If
> > >you think he was such a bad character, why don't you start a
list
> > >called the "Anti-Richard III Forum"? Then you could go on
about
> bi-
> > >polar disorder and buggering as much as you want.
> >
> > >Am I alone in feeling this way?
> >
> > Yes and no. One of the good things about having this as an open
> forum is
> > that anyone can come in with an opinion about Richard III and,
one
> hopes,
> > have it answered in a reasoned and respectful fashion by others.
> >
> > As most people know, I am neither "for" Richard nor "anti"
> Richard. I am of
> > the opinion that the evidence we have is scanty, ill-informed,
and
> possibly
> > biased -- all to the point that it's difficult to rely on any of
> it. Am I
> > willing to say that Richard was responsible for the untimely
> deaths of his
> > nephews? No. Am I willing to say that he didn't? No. We don't
know
> who did
> > it or even what "it" was.
> >
> > Am I willing to say that the evidence doesn't support the old
> traditional
> > view of a hunchback who started plotting to get the throne in
> 1471, and
> > that a continued reassessment of his life, character, and reign
is
> a good
> > thing? You bet. In my book, that makes me a Ricardian.
> >
> > One of the best things that Ricardians can do on this forum is
to
> state
> > their/our case in a reasoned fashion, without recourse to name-
> calling or
> > invective. In my opinion, of course. As a Ricardian, I'd prefer
to
> let the
> > anti-Richards embarrass themselves by displaying a lack of
> intellectual
> > rigor and/or manners, but I'd like to see the Ricardians all be
> paragons of
> > chivalry [*smile*]. By our words shall ye know us...
> >
> > So yes, I think the Ricardians should speak up and no, I don't
> think it's
> > necessary to chase all the anti-Richards off the forum. A
healthy
> exchange
> > of viewpoints keeps us all sharp and on our toes.
> >
> > I also think that as long as we have new people coming to the
> internet or
> > to the Ricardian controversy we'll continue to go over the same
> old stuff.
> > It's a bit like being on a bicycle team -- one of the "old
hands"
> can be at
> > the front of the line fighting the wind resistance while others
> are further
> > to the back in the slipstream catching their breaths.
> >
> > Just my two cents' worth. Others' opinions may vary. While I'm
on
> the
> > subject of my opinions, though, I think all that business about
> Richard
> > being neurotic, bipolar, etc., is based on an imperfect
> understanding of
> > the customs of fifteenth-century English nobility and gentry and
> the way
> > things worked back then.
> >
> > --
> > Laura Blanchard
> > lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> > Collections Libraries
> > lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> > Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> > http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

I agree with the spirit of what you said.

I don't think there's any evidence that Richard suffered from
bi-polar disorder, but that he was under stress, I've no doubt.

I do think he was an extremely courageous man & I admire him for
that. He stood up against Dorset & the like and I can't blame him.
I do feel that he was inclined to bend the rules to suit himself
and the claim of bastardy against his nephews seems dubious. It's
supremely ironic that a dynasty founded by a bastard: William the
First, should have a descendant using bastardy as a means of
acquiring the crown. But this is forgivable, for Richard needed to
survive & it seems to me that he did feel threatened by Dorset &
Elizabeth Woodville angling for power and in view of the terrible
events of his life: the violent deaths of two brothers & a Father,
who were caught up in a power struggle.

The reason why we got bogged down in questions of who was illegitimate
in the English Royal family was to show up a certain hypocrisy over
Richard attacking his nephews over such a matter.

'Am I willing to say that the evidence doesn't support the old
traditional> view of a hunchback who started plotting to get the
throne in 1471, and> that a continued reassessment of his life,
character, and reign is a good> thing? You bet. In my book, that makes
me a Ricardian.'

I agree with this, too.

I'm sorry that Paul & I had an exchange of 'words' over Edward II. I
was trying to prove the point that 'legitimacy' isn't easy to prove &
illegitimacy is a pretty thin case upon which to base a claim to the
crown. I wasn't trying to score points over 'gays,' which was a side
issue and over which I have no feelings one way or another, while
recognising that their position in society has often been
controversial.



-- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 03:54 PM 1/18/03 -0000, you wrote:
>
> > I guess this has turned into a forum for peopole to work out
> >their own issues using Richard as a foil. Are there any people on
> >this list who think that Richard III was a man worth defending? If
> >you think he was such a bad character, why don't you start a list
> >called the "Anti-Richard III Forum"? Then you could go on about
bi-
> >polar disorder and buggering as much as you want.
>
> >Am I alone in feeling this way?
>
> Yes and no. One of the good things about having this as an open
forum is
> that anyone can come in with an opinion about Richard III and, one
hopes,
> have it answered in a reasoned and respectful fashion by others.
>
> As most people know, I am neither "for" Richard nor "anti" Richard.
I am of
> the opinion that the evidence we have is scanty, ill-informed, and
possibly
> biased -- all to the point that it's difficult to rely on any of it.
Am I
> willing to say that Richard was responsible for the untimely deaths
of his
> nephews? No. Am I willing to say that he didn't? No. We don't know
who did
> it or even what "it" was.
>
> Am I willing to say that the evidence doesn't support the old
traditional
> view of a hunchback who started plotting to get the throne in 1471,
and
> that a continued reassessment of his life, character, and reign is a
good
> thing? You bet. In my book, that makes me a Ricardian.
>
> One of the best things that Ricardians can do on this forum is to
state
> their/our case in a reasoned fashion, without recourse to
name-calling or
> invective. In my opinion, of course. As a Ricardian, I'd prefer to
let the
> anti-Richards embarrass themselves by displaying a lack of
intellectual
> rigor and/or manners, but I'd like to see the Ricardians all be
paragons of
> chivalry [*smile*]. By our words shall ye know us...
>
> So yes, I think the Ricardians should speak up and no, I don't think
it's
> necessary to chase all the anti-Richards off the forum. A healthy
exchange
> of viewpoints keeps us all sharp and on our toes.
>
> I also think that as long as we have new people coming to the
internet or
> to the Ricardian controversy we'll continue to go over the same old
stuff.
> It's a bit like being on a bicycle team -- one of the "old hands"
can be at
> the front of the line fighting the wind resistance while others are
further
> to the back in the slipstream catching their breaths.
>
> Just my two cents' worth. Others' opinions may vary. While I'm on
the
> subject of my opinions, though, I think all that business about
Richard
> being neurotic, bipolar, etc., is based on an imperfect
understanding of
> the customs of fifteenth-century English nobility and gentry and the
way
> things worked back then.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

'I know I should be quoting > sources and sending them to livbraries
instead of spouting off. > Must be a bi-polar seizure coming on.'

I think we'll all end up bi-polar if we hear any amore about Richard
being bi-polar or Edward II & 'gays.'

I hope Paul & I can stop bickering, even if I do use the odd word
picked up from quality newspapers, which he doesn't think fashionable.

Well, if we ruffle a few feathers occasionally, I suspect politics,
including historical politics, was always about that!

<Very tiredly> Would you please give it a rest. Please stop subjecting the
list to the repeated pot shot follow-up comments. You were politely asked
to take it offline if you must continue. I believe you can rest assured
that everyone already understands what your viewpoint is about what's been
said before.

Kim

At 05:15 PM 1/18/03 +0000, willison2001 <willison2001@...> wrote:
>I hope Paul & I can stop bickering, even if I do use the odd word
>picked up from quality newspapers, which he doesn't think fashionable.
>
>Well, if we ruffle a few feathers occasionally, I suspect politics,
>including historical politics, was always about that!

You know, I thought so too. In fact, when I joined
this list, I was a diehard Richard proponent!

I was pleasantly surprised that people on this list
actually have a variety of viewpoints about Richard.

As long as they argue in a civilized manner, I think
this is an EXTREMELY good thing.

It is very helpful to people trying to uncover the
actual facts, which in my view are mixed. As well as
so confusing that even characters like Ross and
Jonathan Hughes have valuable input!

Dora




--- "Janet <forevere@...>"
<forevere@...> wrote:
> I have been reading this list for the last few
> weeks and it seems
> most of the posters are out to prove Richard III WAS
> a villian! I
> do not think he was "without sin" but I'm sorry that
> this forum has
> been given over to those who would continue to look
> for reasons to
> trash him. According to recent posts he was either
> mentally ill,
> sexually deviant or worse. Where are the reasoned
> arguments? Where
> is the supporting research? Why are we going over
> all same old
> stuff?
> I guess this has turned into a forum for peopole
> to work out
> their own issues using Richard as a foil. Are there
> any people on
> this list who think that Richard III was a man worth
> defending? If
> you think he was such a bad character, why don't you
> start a list
> called the "Anti-Richard III Forum"? Then you could
> go on about bi-
> polar disorder and buggering as much as you want.
> Am I alone in feeling this way?
>
> Janet
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Assitance Wanted please. I am trying to read up on the the sorcery
allegations levied against Jacquetta Woodville. I remember reading
> > somewhere about an accusation levied against Jacquetta by one
Thomas Wake around 1471 which reached the Kings Council. Can anyone
direct me to the primary or secondary source for this.Thank You.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

That could be Titulus Regius. I don't know anything
about Thomas Wake but if he was even slightly obscure
I might not.

Titulus Regius is I think on the Richard III
organziation web site; I think it's http://www.r3.org
If you found this list, surely you've found the web
site; the online library can take some rummaging to
find what is there. If not, it is online someplace
and you can find it through http://www.google.com

Titulus Regius is a piece of political propaganda
written up as the bill that legitimized Richard's
claim to power and illegitimized the children of
Edward IV. It makes much of witchcraft, both on the
part of Elizabeth Woodville, and Jaquetta, who may
have been Elizabeth's mother. It is very possible
Richard did not ENTIRELY dream the idea himself; in
fact I think alot of people were thinking along those
lines of how she managed to enviegle Edward to marry
her.

Not, I think witchcraft is actually what happened.
But their general evaluation of her and her family was
well founded.

I looked at it very carefully, since it could
conceivably be taken to describe Richard's character
and/or mental health. He apparently genuinely
suspected that witchcraft must have had something to
do with it. I'm not sure he thought his brother could
act irresponsibly all by himself. In fact, he
appears to have thought that Edward's courtiers
deliberately enviegled him into a loose lifestyle in
order to kill him! He even tried to straighten out
young Edward V on that subject. He also said
completely seriously, that Henry Tudor and all of his
followers were 'orrible adulteres, on top of trying to
reform the sexual mores of the country and return them
to God - but I'm not sure if he really thought that or
he was simply out of his mind with anger.

But Titulus Regius and its wording are actually pretty
typical of such political conflicts in that time.
There were other cases involvin someone taking the
protectorship, where people were actually charged and
prosecuted for witchcraft!

Dora


--- "michaelshankland <Infernus9@...>"
<Infernus9@...> wrote:
> Assitance Wanted please. I am trying to read up on
> the the sorcery
> allegations levied against Jacquetta Woodville. I
> remember reading
> > > somewhere about an accusation levied against
> Jacquetta by one
> Thomas Wake around 1471 which reached the Kings
> Council. Can anyone
> direct me to the primary or secondary source for
> this.Thank You.
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

At 02:02 PM 1/19/03 -0000, you wrote:
>Assitance Wanted please. I am trying to read up on the the sorcery
>allegations levied against Jacquetta Woodville. I remember reading
>> > somewhere about an accusation levied against Jacquetta by one
>Thomas Wake around 1471 which reached the Kings Council. Can anyone
>direct me to the primary or secondary source for this.Thank You.
>>

I can't direct you, but I bet there's something in Michael Hicks' biography
of Warwick the Kingmaker and/or Charles Ross's biography of Edward IV.

A. J. Pollard also did something on Elizabeth Woodville, "The Witch, the
Hog, and the Historians." I can't at the moment recall whether that showed
up in _Traditions and Transformations_ or one of his. Again, I'm guessing
that his source notes might contain something regarding the accusations
against her mother.


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

--- In , Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> That could be Titulus Regius. I don't know anything
> about Thomas Wake but if he was even slightly obscure
> I might not.

> Titulus Regius is a piece of political propaganda
> written up as the bill that legitimized Richard's
> claim to power and illegitimized the children of
> Edward IV. It makes much of witchcraft, both on the
> part of Elizabeth Woodville, and Jaquetta, who may
> have been Elizabeth's mother. It is very possible
> Richard did not ENTIRELY dream the idea himself; in
> fact I think alot of people were thinking along those
> lines of how she managed to enviegle Edward to marry
> her.

> Dora>
>
Thank You Dora, I knew that the accusation against Jacquetta was made
in the Titulus Regius. I am interested to trace the accusation before
1483.
The history of sorcery in the 14th and 15th centuries is fascinating.
There seemed to be some maverick friars who were intrigued by the
subject and ocasionally one finds quite a high up person who was
interested such as the mistress fo Edward III-Alice Perrers and Lady
Eleanor Cobham, wife to Humphrey Duke of Gloucester who was put on
trial in July 1441 on sorcery charges. Henry IV's wife, joan of
Navarre was also accused of sorcery in 1419. It could be that some
fshionable ladies were developing an interest, or alternately it may
have been a weapon to defame women who seemed to have antagonised a
powerful Court faction. The fact that the charge was levied against
other prominent women does not of course prove that Jaquetta herself
was involved.
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> > now.
> > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com