tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory

 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
 
Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/

Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.

Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.

Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>  
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
>  
> Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
>
>
>

Oh dear, is it that bad?
 
I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
 
 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.

Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>  
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
>  
> Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
>
>
>

"What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
"I think we've no choice, sir"


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
Oh dear, is it that bad?
 
I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
 
 

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory

 
Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.

Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>  
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
>  
> Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
>
>
>

Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it. Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!

I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and last book written by this author.
Eileen




--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
>  
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>  
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> >  
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> >  
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....



________________________________
From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
"What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
"I think we've no choice, sir"

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
Oh dear, is it that bad?
 
I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
 
 

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory

 
Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.

Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>  
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
>  
> Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
>
>
>

Well I've never read any which I suppose is a bit unfair since I can't really properly criticise when I haven't read it.  I might try and get it from the library but to be honest I resent the idea of wasting my time on trash. 
 
I also have to say that I don't know how anyone can write a chapter that is only 3 pages long.  Do you think she got bored?


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 22:13
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it. Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!

I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and last book written by this author.
Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
>  
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>  
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> >  
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> >  
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
time to time, who knows?

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory






Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!

I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
last book written by this author.
Eileen

Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death proves that.

I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a Tudor thing.

I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous Roll.

All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found it rather odd it was even mentioned.

I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!

Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
Eileen



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
> turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> time to time, who knows?
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
> character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
>
> I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
> shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> last book written by this author.
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liz....If you do want to read this book...out of curiosity maybe....as you said...get it from the library as its rather a waste of money.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well I've never read any which I suppose is a bit unfair since I can't really properly criticise when I haven't read it.  I might try and get it from the library but to be honest I resent the idea of wasting my time on trash. 
>  
> I also have to say that I don't know how anyone can write a chapter that is only 3 pages long.  Do you think she got bored?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 22:13
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>  
> Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it. Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
>
> I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and last book written by this author.
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh dear, is it that bad?
> >  
> > I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >  
> > Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
> >
> > Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > >  
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > >  
> > > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But I'm waiting for the vampires.

Flo

On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:

> Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
> "I think we've no choice, sir"
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
>
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory. I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> >
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I can whizz through it on my commute to London and annoy the other travellers with my comments of "THAT didn't happen!"



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 14:05
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
Liz....If you do want to read this book...out of curiosity maybe....as you said...get it from the library as its rather a waste of money.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well I've never read any which I suppose is a bit unfair since I can't really properly criticise when I haven't read it.  I might try and get it from the library but to be honest I resent the idea of wasting my time on trash. 
>  
> I also have to say that I don't know how anyone can write a chapter that is only 3 pages long.  Do you think she got bored?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 22:13
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>  
> Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it. Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
>
> I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and last book written by this author.
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh dear, is it that bad?
> > à
> > I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.à I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman.à
> > à
> > à
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> > à
> > Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
> >
> > Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > à
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > > à
> > > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Talking of witchcraft, has it go poor Ankarette Twynho (sp?) in it or doesn't it get that far?



________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 16:07
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory

It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But I'm waiting for the vampires.

Flo

On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:

> Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
> 
> "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
> "I think we've no choice, sir"
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
> 
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
> 
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
> 
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
> 
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > 
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Way too much witchcraft...But on the other hand it does provide some laughs...picture this....Jaquetta stands behind Elizabeth, the quivering Neville girls in front of them...Jacquetta then whistles...yes..whistles (this is pertinent to the witchcraft thingy) A picture comes to mind..Jacquetta in a sumptious gown, beautiful hennin headdress..and whistles. Not a good look!..I wondered whether she was tapping her foot and whistling the first chorus of "Alway look on the bright side of life".....Hilarious

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Talking of witchcraft, has it go poor Ankarette Twynho (sp?) in it or doesn't it get that far?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 16:07
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
> It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But I'm waiting for the vampires.
>
> Flo
>
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:
>
> > Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> > 
> > "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
> > "I think we've no choice, sir"
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> > 
> > Oh dear, is it that bad?
> > 
> > I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> > 
> > Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
> >
> > Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > > 
> > > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Oh yes Liz...Ankarette does not escape this book....

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Talking of witchcraft, has it go poor Ankarette Twynho (sp?) in it or doesn't it get that far?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 16:07
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
> It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But I'm waiting for the vampires.
>
> Flo
>
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:
>
> > Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> > 
> > "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
> > "I think we've no choice, sir"
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> > 
> > Oh dear, is it that bad?
> > 
> > I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> > 
> > Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
> >
> > Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > > 
> > > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

New acquisitions by the fiction library since last website update of
June, 2011

Books

Bennetts, Pamela
Bright Sun of York. London: Robert Hale & Company, 1971. 287pp.
The story of Edward and Warwick from 1445 to 1471, mainly as seen
through the eyes of one of Edward's courtiers.

Gregory, Philippa
The Lady of the Rivers. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011 464 pp.
Third in the "Cousins' War" series, it is the author's story of
Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, a woman who navigated a treacherous
path through the battle lines in the Wars of the Roses.

The Kingmaker's Daughter. New York:Simon & Schuster, 2012. 417 pp.
The story of the daughters of the man known as the Kingmaker,
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick: the most powerful magnate in
fifteenth-century England. Without a son and heir, he uses his
daughters Anne and Isabel as pawns in his political games, and they
grow up to be influential players in their own right. Fouth book in
the "Cousins' War" series.


Lewis, Matthew
Loyalty. Kentucky: CreateSpace, 2012. 594 pp.
Born to be nobody. Destined to be king. Doomed to be a villain. What
matters? Loyalty matters. Loyalty Binds Me. Artist Hans Holbein is
summoned to the house of Sir Thomas More to receive the commission of
a lifetime. He will leave with a secret that could cost him his life.
He will learn the truth about the life of King Richard III, the man
that the Tudor dynasty has been at great pains to villify. From his
return from exile with his brother, King Edward IV, to his rise to
become the king's most loyal, most trusted and most powerful subject.
From his flourishing personal life to his seizure of the throne from
his nephew. This unfashionable truth is as nothing compared to the
reason for hiding it. Hans Holbein is about to be asked to hide
England's greatest secret. A secret that could tear apart the fragile
Tudor regime.


Lombardo, Stanley
Paxton at Bosworth Field. South Carolina: Createspace, 2012.
358 pages.
IPursued by an Apache war party, Carter Paxton rides through a
medicine cave in Arizona and emerges in medieval England. His survival
tools include not only his Sharps buffalo rifle and a pair of Colt
revolvers, but  more importantly -- three books that will change the
course of history. Upon arriving, Paxton rescues a lone hunter and
learns that he is none other than Richard III, who in no way resembles
Shakespeare's hunchbacked monster. Beset by enemies, Richard welcomes
the aid of this mysterious stranger -- while the King's niece, the
beautiful Lady Joanna, welcomes her handsome new suitor. When Joanna
discovers the copy of Shakespeare's plays that Paxton has brought with
him, he reveals to her his past and his determination to help Richard
win the crucial Battle of Bosworth Field. With Bosworth mere months
away, and limited to the materials and techniques of the time, Paxton
and Joanna strive to bring nineteenth-century technology to the
fifteenth century. Assisting their efforts are Master Printer William
Caxton, former soldier of fortune Brother Tranquillus, and scholarly
warrior Anthony, Earl Rivers. But will their help be sufficient -- and
timely enough  as the insidious and arrogant Bishop Morton, Duke of
Buckingham, and Lord Stanley plot to bring the rapacious Pretender
Henry Tudor to the throne?


Szechtman, Joan
Loyalty Binds Me. Star Publish, LLC, 2011. 206pp.
Sequel to This Time, Richard III is arrested for a 500 year-old murder
and must defend himself and protect his family without revealing his
true identity.

Yes it does.

Karen

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 17:32:38 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory






Talking of witchcraft, has it go poor Ankarette Twynho (sp?) in it or
doesn't it get that far?

________________________________
From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 16:07
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory

It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But
I'm waiting for the vampires.

Flo

On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:

> Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...
<mailto:blancsanglier1452%40yahoo.com> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for
breaking the Christmas truce?"
> "I think we've no choice, sir"
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
>
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple
of them said they liked Philippa Gregory. I groaned and as usual shoved them
firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they
get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lea
d-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> >
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh that 'witches' wind'Š One of many oft repeated phrases.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:45:29 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory






Way too much witchcraft...But on the other hand it does provide some
laughs...picture this....Jaquetta stands behind Elizabeth, the quivering
Neville girls in front of them...Jacquetta then whistles...yes..whistles
(this is pertinent to the witchcraft thingy) A picture comes to
mind..Jacquetta in a sumptious gown, beautiful hennin headdress..and
whistles. Not a good look!..I wondered whether she was tapping her foot and
whistling the first chorus of "Alway look on the bright side of
life".....Hilarious

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>

I can't believe some of these posts. Please say you are winding us up. It can't possibly be true!!

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Oh that 'witches' wind'Š One of many oft repeated phrases.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 16:45:29 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Way too much witchcraft...But on the other hand it does provide some
> laughs...picture this....Jaquetta stands behind Elizabeth, the quivering
> Neville girls in front of them...Jacquetta then whistles...yes..whistles
> (this is pertinent to the witchcraft thingy) A picture comes to
> mind..Jacquetta in a sumptious gown, beautiful hennin headdress..and
> whistles. Not a good look!..I wondered whether she was tapping her foot and
> whistling the first chorus of "Alway look on the bright side of
> life".....Hilarious
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Eileen,

That whole dress business, when read in context in Crowland, was one part of a diatribe against "lavish display" and vain exchanges of clothing at Christmas 1484. It was, after all, Yule season and a time for topsy-turvy (like Fools' Feast). I've always suspected Queen Anne, being generous, either shared her gowns or had her dressmakers sew up something from similar fabric for her niece. No big whoop...but good for that catty old "continuator" of Crowland to include with his other sour complaints. 

Think how people gossip about what the actresses wear to the Academy Awards. Or the fashion missteps by the present Royals. Our US First Lady gets flack for choosing "off the rack." Check out the tabloids. Things haven't changed. The only difference is the National Enquirer does not get preserved in a monastery. But it's good for wrapping fish...

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death proves that.

I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a Tudor thing.

I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous Roll.

All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found it rather odd it was even mentioned.

I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!

Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
Eileen

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
> turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> time to time, who knows?
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
> character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
>
> I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
> shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> last book written by this author.
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I appeciate that update more than anyone. No offence, but have been trying to buy some books from the shop... does it still have a pulse?!

;)


________________________________
From: Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...>
To: ; [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 5:55 PM
Subject: Fiction Library Update

New acquisitions by the fiction library since last website update of 
June, 2011

Books

Bennetts, Pamela
Bright Sun of York.  London: Robert Hale & Company, 1971.  287pp.
The story of Edward and Warwick from 1445 to 1471, mainly as seen 
through the eyes of one of Edward's courtiers.

Gregory, Philippa
The Lady of the Rivers.  New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011  464 pp.
Third in the "Cousins' War" series, it is the author's story of 
Jacquetta, Duchess of Bedford, a woman who navigated a treacherous 
path through the battle lines in the Wars of the Roses.

The Kingmaker's Daughter.  New York:Simon & Schuster, 2012.  417 pp.
The  story of the daughters of the man known as the Kingmaker, 
Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick: the most powerful magnate in 
fifteenth-century England. Without a son and heir, he uses his 
daughters Anne and Isabel as pawns in his political games, and they 
grow up to be influential players in their own right. Fouth book in 
the "Cousins' War" series.


Lewis, Matthew
Loyalty.  Kentucky: CreateSpace, 2012.      594 pp.
Born to be nobody. Destined to be king. Doomed to be a villain. What 
matters? Loyalty matters. Loyalty Binds Me. Artist Hans Holbein is 
summoned to the house of Sir Thomas More to receive the commission of 
a lifetime. He will leave with a secret that could cost him his life. 
He will learn the truth about the life of King Richard III, the man 
that the Tudor dynasty has been at great pains to villify. From his 
return from exile with his brother, King Edward IV, to his rise to 
become the king's most loyal, most trusted and most powerful subject. 
From his flourishing personal life to his seizure of the throne from 
his nephew. This unfashionable truth is as nothing compared to the 
reason for hiding it. Hans Holbein is about to be asked to hide 
England's greatest secret. A secret that could tear apart the fragile 
Tudor regime.


Lombardo, Stanley
Paxton at Bosworth Field.  South Carolina: Createspace,  2012.     
358 pages.
IPursued by an Apache war party, Carter Paxton rides through a 
medicine cave in Arizona and emerges in medieval England. His survival 
tools include not only his Sharps buffalo rifle and a pair of Colt 
revolvers, but  more importantly -- three books that will change the 
course of history. Upon arriving, Paxton rescues a lone hunter and 
learns that he is none other than Richard III, who in no way resembles 
Shakespeare's hunchbacked monster. Beset by enemies, Richard welcomes 
the aid of this mysterious stranger -- while the King's niece, the 
beautiful Lady Joanna, welcomes her handsome new suitor. When Joanna 
discovers the copy of Shakespeare's plays that Paxton has brought with 
him, he reveals to her his past and his determination to help Richard 
win the crucial Battle of Bosworth Field. With Bosworth mere months 
away, and limited to the materials and techniques of the time, Paxton 
and Joanna strive to bring nineteenth-century technology to the 
fifteenth century. Assisting their efforts are Master Printer William 
Caxton, former soldier of fortune Brother Tranquillus, and scholarly 
warrior Anthony, Earl Rivers. But will their help be sufficient -- and 
timely enough  as the insidious and arrogant Bishop Morton, Duke of 
Buckingham, and Lord Stanley plot to bring the rapacious Pretender 
Henry Tudor to the throne?


Szechtman, Joan
Loyalty Binds Me.  Star Publish, LLC, 2011.  206pp.
Sequel to This Time, Richard III is arrested for a 500 year-old murder 
and must defend himself and protect his family without revealing his 
true identity.






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate. 


The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available. 




________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death proves that.

I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a Tudor thing.

I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous Roll.

All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found it rather odd it was even mentioned.

I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!

Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
Eileen

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
> turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> time to time, who knows?
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
> character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
>
> I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
> shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> last book written by this author.
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Judy...yes I agree with you totally. If the people were in any way surprised as Old Croyland suggests this was probably because other people didnt get to wear the sumptious fabrics that a King and Queen would wear...and Katherine being illigimate made it even more surprising. ..So yes I suspect if this was case and it was not all in his head that this stemmed from Anne's generosity and kindness....Maybe they had become friends...

However Judy, back to the book.....Here we have Richard noticing Anne's dress and enquiring if there was any more of the fabric left...yes...he had plenty of spare time you see to take an interest in fabrics and stuff...his idea being that people will notice..Katherine wearing the same fabric and put two and two together...and think Elizabeth is his mistress..This is to upset young Henry kicking his heels in France...In actual fact I would have thought this would have been the last thing Richard wanted spread around and he was pretty sharp off the block to deny this rumour when Anne died.....but there you go...
Eileen




--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen,
>
> That whole dress business, when read in context in Crowland, was one part of a diatribe against "lavish display" and vain exchanges of clothing at Christmas 1484. It was, after all, Yule season and a time for topsy-turvy (like Fools' Feast). I've always suspected Queen Anne, being generous, either shared her gowns or had her dressmakers sew up something from similar fabric for her niece. No big whoop...but good for that catty old "continuator" of Crowland to include with his other sour complaints. 
>
> Think how people gossip about what the actresses wear to the Academy Awards. Or the fashion missteps by the present Royals. Our US First Lady gets flack for choosing "off the rack." Check out the tabloids. Things haven't changed. The only difference is the National Enquirer does not get preserved in a monastery. But it's good for wrapping fish...
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 7:59 AM
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>  
> Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death proves that.
>
> I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a Tudor thing.
>
> I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous Roll.
>
> All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found it rather odd it was even mentioned.
>
> I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
>
> Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
> > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> > time to time, who knows?
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
> > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
> >
> > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
> > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > last book written by this author.
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

David,
I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
there are any contemporary likenesses.

Karen


From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory






In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.

The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory



Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of
York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
proves that.

I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in
fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there
must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
Tudor thing.

I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was
a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
Roll.

All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not
know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found
it rather odd it was even mentioned.

I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!

Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
> turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> time to time, who knows?
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
> character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
>
> I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
> shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> last book written by this author.
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> David,
> I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
> there are any contemporary likenesses.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
>
> The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
> depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
> there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
> Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of
> York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
> say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
> have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> proves that.
>
> I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
> any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
> it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in
> fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there
> must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> Tudor thing.
>
> I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was
> a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
> Roll.
>
> All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not
> know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found
> it rather odd it was even mentioned.
>
> I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
>
> Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
> > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> > time to time, who knows?
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
> > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
> >
> > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
> > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > last book written by this author.
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of his
brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly covers
anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory






I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> David,
> I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
> there are any contemporary likenesses.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
>
> The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
> depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
> there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
> Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of
> York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
> say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
> have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> proves that.
>
> I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
> any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
> it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in
> fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there
> must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> Tudor thing.
>
> I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was
> a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
> Roll.
>
> All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not
> know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found
> it rather odd it was even mentioned.
>
> I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
>
> Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
> > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> > time to time, who knows?
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
> > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
> >
> > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
> > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > last book written by this author.
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get annoyed when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc., as it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts correct in the bigger picture.

For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of his
> brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
> scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly covers
> anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > David,
> > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
> > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> >
> > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
> > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
> > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of
> > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
> > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
> > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > proves that.
> >
> > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
> > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
> > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in
> > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there
> > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > Tudor thing.
> >
> > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was
> > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
> > Roll.
> >
> > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not
> > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found
> > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> >
> > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> >
> > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence face
> > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> > > time to time, who knows?
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change of
> > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
> > >
> > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and it
> > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > > last book written by this author.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Beauty of SKP's novels is that she lists where she's varied from the
known facts - far superior historical fiction...

On 2 September 2012 11:29, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get
> annoyed when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume
> etc., as it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known
> facts correct in the bigger picture.
>
> For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of
> his
> > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their
> bones
> > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly
> covers
> > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > David,
> > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't
> believe
> > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > Reply-To: <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > >
> > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters
> tended to
> > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time,
> since
> > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and
> Elizabeth of
> > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel
> to
> > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard
> would
> > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > proves that.
> > >
> > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever
> seen
> > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards.
> Clearly
> > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were
> engaged in
> > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> there
> > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > Tudor thing.
> > >
> > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but
> that was
> > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the
> Rous
> > > Roll.
> > >
> > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I
> do not
> > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> found
> > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > >
> > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > >
> > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you,
> the
> > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the
> Clarence face
> > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> from
> > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > To: <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> can't
> > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read
> it.
> > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially
> storylines re
> > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire
> change of
> > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> not!
> > > >
> > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she
> can and it
> > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to
> come out
> > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first
> and
> > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the Act
of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce couldn't
possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't that
Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and one
(I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found. That
condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have been
agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed his
support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in place.

I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level of
detail, either, it does my head in!

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory






OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get annoyed
when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc., as
it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
correct in the bigger picture.

For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of his
> brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
> scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly covers
> anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > David,
> > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
> > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> >
> > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> >
> > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
> > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
> > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of
> > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
> > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
> > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > proves that.
> >
> > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
> > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
> > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in
> > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there
> > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > Tudor thing.
> >
> > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was
> > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
> > Roll.
> >
> > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not
> > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found
> > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> >
> > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> >
> > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence
face
> > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> > > time to time, who knows?
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change
of
> > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
> > >
> > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and
it
> > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > > last book written by this author.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And yet Gregory appears to be far more popular.  It baffles me, but I suppose people like an easy read.



________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 15:44
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory

The Beauty of SKP's novels is that she lists where she's varied from the
known facts - far superior historical fiction...

On 2 September 2012 11:29, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get
> annoyed when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume
> etc., as it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known
> facts correct in the bigger picture.
>
> For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of
> his
> > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their
> bones
> > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly
> covers
> > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > David,
> > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't
> believe
> > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > Reply-To: <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > >
> > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters
> tended to
> > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time,
> since
> > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and
> Elizabeth of
> > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel
> to
> > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard
> would
> > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > proves that.
> > >
> > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever
> seen
> > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards.
> Clearly
> > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were
> engaged in
> > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> there
> > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > Tudor thing.
> > >
> > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but
> that was
> > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the
> Rous
> > > Roll.
> > >
> > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I
> do not
> > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> found
> > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > >
> > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > >
> > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you,
> the
> > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the
> Clarence face
> > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> from
> > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > To: <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> can't
> > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read
> it.
> > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially
> storylines re
> > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire
> change of
> > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> not!
> > > >
> > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she
> can and it
> > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to
> come out
> > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first
> and
> > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

All in all I am wondering whether I should give the tv version a miss...and this is before it is even made!...Someone, I think it was Ed, did reply to one of my messages where I said I would love to see more Plantagenet stuff dramatised for TV with "Be careful what you wish for"....so true....I just think it is going to do my head in....Is it worth it?.....oh soooo Duh!
Eileen




--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> And yet Gregory appears to be far more popular.  It baffles me, but I suppose people like an easy read.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 15:44
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
> The Beauty of SKP's novels is that she lists where she's varied from the
> known facts - far superior historical fiction...
>
> On 2 September 2012 11:29, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get
> > annoyed when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume
> > etc., as it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known
> > facts correct in the bigger picture.
> >
> > For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> > hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> > law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> > you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> > Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> > dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> > reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> > said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> > bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of
> > his
> > > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their
> > bones
> > > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly
> > covers
> > > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> > > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David,
> > > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't
> > believe
> > > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > > To: "
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > > <
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > > Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > > >
> > > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters
> > tended to
> > > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time,
> > since
> > > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and
> > Elizabeth of
> > > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel
> > to
> > > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard
> > would
> > > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > > proves that.
> > > >
> > > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever
> > seen
> > > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards.
> > Clearly
> > > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were
> > engaged in
> > > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> > there
> > > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > > Tudor thing.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but
> > that was
> > > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the
> > Rous
> > > > Roll.
> > > >
> > > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I
> > do not
> > > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> > found
> > > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > > >
> > > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you,
> > the
> > > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the
> > Clarence face
> > > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> > from
> > > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > > To: <
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> > can't
> > > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read
> > it.
> > > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially
> > storylines re
> > > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire
> > change of
> > > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> > not!
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she
> > can and it
> > > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to
> > come out
> > > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first
> > and
> > > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I'm dreading the nonsense that's going to be spouted on facebook. Can you
imagine the kinds of groups that'll spring up?

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:52:51 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory







All in all I am wondering whether I should give the tv version a miss...and
this is before it is even made!...Someone, I think it was Ed, did reply to
one of my messages where I said I would love to see more Plantagenet stuff
dramatised for TV with "Be careful what you wish for"....so true....I just
think it is going to do my head in....Is it worth it?.....oh soooo Duh!
Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> And yet Gregory appears to be far more popular. It baffles me, but I suppose
people like an easy read.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 2 September 2012, 15:44
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
> The Beauty of SKP's novels is that she lists where she's varied from the
> known facts - far superior historical fiction...
>
> On 2 September 2012 11:29, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get
> > annoyed when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume
> > etc., as it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known
> > facts correct in the bigger picture.
> >
> > For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> > hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> > law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> > you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> > Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> > dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> > reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> > said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> > bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of
> > his
> > > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their
> > bones
> > > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly
> > covers
> > > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> > > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David,
> > > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't
> > believe
> > > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > > Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > > >
> > > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters
> > tended to
> > > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time,
> > since
> > > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and
> > Elizabeth of
> > > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel
> > to
> > > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard
> > would
> > > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > > proves that.
> > > >
> > > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever
> > seen
> > > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards.
> > Clearly
> > > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were
> > engaged in
> > > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> > there
> > > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > > Tudor thing.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but
> > that was
> > > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the
> > Rous
> > > > Roll.
> > > >
> > > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I
> > do not
> > > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> > found
> > > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > > >
> > > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you,
> > the
> > > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the
> > Clarence face
> > > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> > from
> > > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> > can't
> > > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read
> > it.
> > > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially
> > storylines re
> > > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire
> > change of
> > > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> > not!
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she
> > can and it
> > > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to
> > come out
> > > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first
> > and
> > > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
>
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.10855439917630
7&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Karen...I never knew that several dispensations were required. They might turn up one day in the Vatican archives....But when push came to shove it hardly mattered did it...as when Anne died she was still Richard's wife and he had never made any move to divorce her or live apart from her. I think it speaks volumes that from the time that Anne fell ill (according to Croyland) shortly after the Christmas period to the time of her death March 16th Richard remained the whole time at Westminster ..except for 2nd February until 6th February when he was at Windsor....The Itinerary of King Richard lll Rhoda Edwards....
Judging from the rest of the Itinerary 1483-1485...this was unusual to remain in one place for so long. There could not be a clearer signal that Richard loved and cared for his wife and her wellbeing. It must have been a dreadful time.....Eileen




--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the Act
> of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce couldn't
> possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
> Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't that
> Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
> the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and one
> (I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found. That
> condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have been
> agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
> divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed his
> support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in place.
>
> I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
> lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
> clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
> lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level of
> detail, either, it does my head in!
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get annoyed
> when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc., as
> it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
> correct in the bigger picture.
>
> For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of his
> > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
> > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly covers
> > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > David,
> > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
> > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > >
> > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
> > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
> > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of
> > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
> > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
> > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > proves that.
> > >
> > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
> > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
> > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in
> > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there
> > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > Tudor thing.
> > >
> > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was
> > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
> > > Roll.
> > >
> > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not
> > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found
> > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > >
> > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > >
> > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence
> face
> > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change
> of
> > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
> > > >
> > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and
> it
> > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

as much as i'm not a pg fan..witchcraft/mantic arts/occult was very much part of the medieval/renaissance lifestyle. therefore, pg is on track to include it. however, she should do more research on it, it to be credible.
 
it was the "new" protestant religion that began the persecution of witches and the so called (dark arts) in our modern era. people are either labelled evil or insane/crazy if they talk about it or research or practice it. much of our modern medicine comes from the alchemy..a dark art. sir isaac newton practiced it.
 
you can not have r3's era without the witchcraft/alchemy/astrological medicinal practices.
this includes the voodoo doll like rituals of making others sick or improving their health.
roslyn

--- On Sat, 9/1/12, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:


From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
To:
Received: Saturday, September 1, 2012, 11:07 AM


It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But I'm waiting for the vampires.

Flo

On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:

> Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
> "I think we've no choice, sir"
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
> 
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
> 
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > 
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

The magic stayed put for a long time after R3. Elizabeth had her Dr. Dee.



________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:22:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
as much as i'm not a pg fan..witchcraft/mantic arts/occult was very much part of the medieval/renaissance lifestyle. therefore, pg is on track to include it. however, she should do more research on it, it to be credible.
 
it was the "new" protestant religion that began the persecution of witches and the so called (dark arts) in our modern era. people are either labelled evil or insane/crazy if they talk about it or research or practice it. much of our modern medicine comes from the alchemy..a dark art. sir isaac newton practiced it.
 
you can not have r3's era without the witchcraft/alchemy/astrological medicinal practices.
this includes the voodoo doll like rituals of making others sick or improving their health.
roslyn

--- On Sat, 9/1/12, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:

From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
To:
Received: Saturday, September 1, 2012, 11:07 AM

It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But I'm waiting for the vampires.

Flo

On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:

> Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
> "I think we've no choice, sir"
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
> 
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
> 
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > 
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the Act
> of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce couldn't
> possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
> Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't that
> Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
> the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and one
> (I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found.

Hi Karen.

I guess you are referring to the "brother-sister affinity" that Hicks claimed Richard and Anne suffered from as a result of Goerge's marriage to Isabel. Hicks just got it wrong, I'm afraid. You normally only needed one dispensation no matter how nmany impediments there were, and Hicks is right that the one that has been found doesn't cover everything - but he has misunderstood what it was for and the probable reason for its incompleteness. Unfortunately, the piece on the dispensation on the Society website isn't very helpful either.

In a nutshell, the fact that Richard's brother had married Anne's sister constituted NO IMPEDIMENT WHATSOEVER to their own marriage. Affinity was the relationship between a person and the blood relatives of their spouse or sexual partner: you couldn't marry your previous partner's relations up to 3rd cousin without a dispensation. Edward of Lancaster was Richard's second cousin once removed, and the dispensation that has been found (granted in April 1472) addresses that impediment: it is spot on. The likeliest reason that it doesn't mention the main impediments - of consanguinity, due to Richard and Anne being cousins to each other - is that it was already in place. Surely Warwick would have tried to get a dispensation for Anne's marriage to Richard as well as George's to Isabel in the hope that Richard could be persuaded to go ahead with it.
My personal opinion is that the mention of possible divorce in the Act of Parliament was inserted to satisfy Clarence, who was claiming the marriage was invalid because Richard had taken Anne by force (we know from the Milanese Papers that Clarence was going around saying this. It's a complicated one, that. As far as the Church was concerned, as long as it could be demonstrated that Anne herself had consented, then the marriage was valid. But the common law - and landed society in general - held it to be a sort of rape if a girl - particularly an heiress - was seduced away by a suitor her family didn't approve of. Clarence presumably saw himself in loco parentis, and had never consented to Anne bringing Richard her share of the inheritance.
There's been so much tosh written about Richard's marriage, and it's really sad that Philippa G is perpetuating it. I haven't read her book on Anne Neville - I read the first one, on Elizabeth Woodville, and vowed to waste any more of my precious time on any more.

Marie





That
> condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have been
> agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
> divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed his
> support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in place.
>
> I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
> lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
> clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
> lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level of
> detail, either, it does my head in!
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get annoyed
> when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc., as
> it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
> correct in the bigger picture.
>
> For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of his
> > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
> > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly covers
> > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > David,
> > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
> > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > >
> > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
> > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
> > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth of
> > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
> > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
> > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > proves that.
> > >
> > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
> > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
> > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged in
> > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course there
> > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > Tudor thing.
> > >
> > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that was
> > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
> > > Roll.
> > >
> > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do not
> > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I found
> > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > >
> > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > >
> > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence
> face
> > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one from
> > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I can't
> > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change
> of
> > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did not!
> > > >
> > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can and
> it
> > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come out
> > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, people did believe in such things and I'm sure many people believed
they were practicing magic. But in Gregory's books, the Wydeville's are
actual real witches with actual real magical powers who cast actual real
magic spells. Hawley Jarman deals with this idea ­ Witchy Wydevilles ­ much
more successfully, with characters in the book believing in magic without
requiring the reader to do the same, if you know what I mean.

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 10:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory






as much as i'm not a pg fan..witchcraft/mantic arts/occult was very much
part of the medieval/renaissance lifestyle. therefore, pg is on track to
include it. however, she should do more research on it, it to be credible.

it was the "new" protestant religion that began the persecution of witches
and the so called (dark arts) in our modern era. people are either labelled
evil or insane/crazy if they talk about it or research or practice it. much
of our modern medicine comes from the alchemy..a dark art. sir isaac newton
practiced it.

you can not have r3's era without the witchcraft/alchemy/astrological
medicinal practices.
this includes the voodoo doll like rituals of making others sick or
improving their health.
roslyn

--- On Sat, 9/1/12, Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net>
> wrote:

From: Florence Dove <mdove9@... <mailto:mdove9%40cox.net> >
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Saturday, September 1, 2012, 11:07 AM

It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But
I'm waiting for the vampires.

Flo

On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:

> Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...
<mailto:blancsanglier1452%40yahoo.com> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for
breaking the Christmas truce?"
> "I think we've no choice, sir"
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
>
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple
of them said they liked Philippa Gregory. I groaned and as usual shoved them
firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they
get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lea
d-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> >
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Marie

How was it in Clarence's interests for his brother to retain his wife's
property in case of divorce? Surely he'd want Anne to retain it in those
circumstances. That would increase the chances, should Anne die before
Isobel, of Clarence getting his hands on the lot.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:57:50 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the Act
> of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce couldn't
> possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
> Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't that
> Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
> the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and one
> (I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found.

Hi Karen.

I guess you are referring to the "brother-sister affinity" that Hicks
claimed Richard and Anne suffered from as a result of Goerge's marriage to
Isabel. Hicks just got it wrong, I'm afraid. You normally only needed one
dispensation no matter how nmany impediments there were, and Hicks is right
that the one that has been found doesn't cover everything - but he has
misunderstood what it was for and the probable reason for its
incompleteness. Unfortunately, the piece on the dispensation on the Society
website isn't very helpful either.

In a nutshell, the fact that Richard's brother had married Anne's sister
constituted NO IMPEDIMENT WHATSOEVER to their own marriage. Affinity was the
relationship between a person and the blood relatives of their spouse or
sexual partner: you couldn't marry your previous partner's relations up to
3rd cousin without a dispensation. Edward of Lancaster was Richard's second
cousin once removed, and the dispensation that has been found (granted in
April 1472) addresses that impediment: it is spot on. The likeliest reason
that it doesn't mention the main impediments - of consanguinity, due to
Richard and Anne being cousins to each other - is that it was already in
place. Surely Warwick would have tried to get a dispensation for Anne's
marriage to Richard as well as George's to Isabel in the hope that Richard
could be persuaded to go ahead with it.
My personal opinion is that the mention of possible divorce in the Act of
Parliament was inserted to satisfy Clarence, who was claiming the marriage
was invalid because Richard had taken Anne by force (we know from the
Milanese Papers that Clarence was going around saying this. It's a
complicated one, that. As far as the Church was concerned, as long as it
could be demonstrated that Anne herself had consented, then the marriage was
valid. But the common law - and landed society in general - held it to be a
sort of rape if a girl - particularly an heiress - was seduced away by a
suitor her family didn't approve of. Clarence presumably saw himself in loco
parentis, and had never consented to Anne bringing Richard her share of the
inheritance.
There's been so much tosh written about Richard's marriage, and it's really
sad that Philippa G is perpetuating it. I haven't read her book on Anne
Neville - I read the first one, on Elizabeth Woodville, and vowed to waste
any more of my precious time on any more.

Marie

That
> condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have been
> agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
> divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed his
> support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in place.
>
> I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
> lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
> clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
> lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level of
> detail, either, it does my head in!
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get annoyed
> when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc., as
> it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
> correct in the bigger picture.
>
> For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of his
> > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
> > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly covers
> > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > David,
> > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
> > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > >
> > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > >
> > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
> > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
> > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth
of
> > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
> > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
> > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > proves that.
> > >
> > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
> > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
> > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged
in
> > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
there
> > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > Tudor thing.
> > >
> > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that
was
> > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
> > > Roll.
> > >
> > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do
not
> > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
found
> > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > >
> > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > >
> > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence
> face
> > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
from
> > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
can't
> > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change
> of
> > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
not!
> > > >
> > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can
and
> it
> > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come
out
> > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> How was it in Clarence's interests for his brother to retain his wife's
> property in case of divorce? Surely he'd want Anne to retain it in those
> circumstances. That would increase the chances, should Anne die before
> Isobel, of Clarence getting his hands on the lot.
>
> Karen

Karen, you're right - I wrote too quickly. Shall we say that Clarence's insistence that the marriage was invalid forced Richard and the King to address the question of what would happen to her half of the Beauchamp inheritance should Clarence succeed in getting the marriage declared void. The Act states that Richard should only keep Anne's share so long as he continued trying to regularise the union with her, which is a sort of compromise position and I imagine was the best they could get Clarence to agree to.
Marie




>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:57:50 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the Act
> > of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce couldn't
> > possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
> > Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't that
> > Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
> > the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and one
> > (I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found.
>
> Hi Karen.
>
> I guess you are referring to the "brother-sister affinity" that Hicks
> claimed Richard and Anne suffered from as a result of Goerge's marriage to
> Isabel. Hicks just got it wrong, I'm afraid. You normally only needed one
> dispensation no matter how nmany impediments there were, and Hicks is right
> that the one that has been found doesn't cover everything - but he has
> misunderstood what it was for and the probable reason for its
> incompleteness. Unfortunately, the piece on the dispensation on the Society
> website isn't very helpful either.
>
> In a nutshell, the fact that Richard's brother had married Anne's sister
> constituted NO IMPEDIMENT WHATSOEVER to their own marriage. Affinity was the
> relationship between a person and the blood relatives of their spouse or
> sexual partner: you couldn't marry your previous partner's relations up to
> 3rd cousin without a dispensation. Edward of Lancaster was Richard's second
> cousin once removed, and the dispensation that has been found (granted in
> April 1472) addresses that impediment: it is spot on. The likeliest reason
> that it doesn't mention the main impediments - of consanguinity, due to
> Richard and Anne being cousins to each other - is that it was already in
> place. Surely Warwick would have tried to get a dispensation for Anne's
> marriage to Richard as well as George's to Isabel in the hope that Richard
> could be persuaded to go ahead with it.
> My personal opinion is that the mention of possible divorce in the Act of
> Parliament was inserted to satisfy Clarence, who was claiming the marriage
> was invalid because Richard had taken Anne by force (we know from the
> Milanese Papers that Clarence was going around saying this. It's a
> complicated one, that. As far as the Church was concerned, as long as it
> could be demonstrated that Anne herself had consented, then the marriage was
> valid. But the common law - and landed society in general - held it to be a
> sort of rape if a girl - particularly an heiress - was seduced away by a
> suitor her family didn't approve of. Clarence presumably saw himself in loco
> parentis, and had never consented to Anne bringing Richard her share of the
> inheritance.
> There's been so much tosh written about Richard's marriage, and it's really
> sad that Philippa G is perpetuating it. I haven't read her book on Anne
> Neville - I read the first one, on Elizabeth Woodville, and vowed to waste
> any more of my precious time on any more.
>
> Marie
>
> That
> > condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have been
> > agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
> > divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed his
> > support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in place.
> >
> > I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
> > lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
> > clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
> > lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level of
> > detail, either, it does my head in!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get annoyed
> > when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc., as
> > it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
> > correct in the bigger picture.
> >
> > For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> > hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> > law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> > you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> > Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> > dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> > reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> > said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> > bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of his
> > > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
> > > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly covers
> > > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are weepers
> > > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David,
> > > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't believe
> > > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > > <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > > Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > > >
> > > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended to
> > > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time, since
> > > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and Elizabeth
> of
> > > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel to
> > > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard would
> > > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > > proves that.
> > > >
> > > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever seen
> > > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards. Clearly
> > > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were engaged
> in
> > > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> there
> > > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > > Tudor thing.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that
> was
> > > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the Rous
> > > > Roll.
> > > >
> > > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do
> not
> > > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> found
> > > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > > >
> > > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> > > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the Clarence
> > face
> > > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> from
> > > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> can't
> > > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read it.
> > > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines re
> > > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire change
> > of
> > > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> not!
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can
> and
> > it
> > > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come
> out
> > > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first and
> > > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

very true bill. but the overt persecution of witches began with the publication of the hammer of the witches in 1487. however, given the speed of communication it wasn't until the mid 1550's that the persecution became widespread.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
 
here is a translation of the book.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/
 


--- On Sun, 9/2/12, William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:


From: William Barber <karenandbillb@...>
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
To: "" <>
Received: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 7:13 PM



 



The magic stayed put for a long time after R3. Elizabeth had her Dr. Dee.

________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:22:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory


 
as much as i'm not a pg fan..witchcraft/mantic arts/occult was very much part of the medieval/renaissance lifestyle. therefore, pg is on track to include it. however, she should do more research on it, it to be credible.
 
it was the "new" protestant religion that began the persecution of witches and the so called (dark arts) in our modern era. people are either labelled evil or insane/crazy if they talk about it or research or practice it. much of our modern medicine comes from the alchemy..a dark art. sir isaac newton practiced it.
 
you can not have r3's era without the witchcraft/alchemy/astrological medicinal practices.
this includes the voodoo doll like rituals of making others sick or improving their health.
roslyn

--- On Sat, 9/1/12, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:

From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
To:
Received: Saturday, September 1, 2012, 11:07 AM

It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But I'm waiting for the vampires.

Flo

On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:

> Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
> "I think we've no choice, sir"
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> Oh dear, is it that bad?
> 
> I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
> 
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>   
> Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
>
> Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > 
> > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Looking at the wording of the clause, there was definitely some reason to
doubt the legality of the marriage at that time. There's nothing in the
reference list in Kingmaker's Daughter to suggest that Gregory even looked
at the relevant Rolls of Parliament. The real countess of Warwick was clued
up enough to understand the clause, as was Anne, no doubt. Not sure I see
the clause as a compromise, more of an attempt to block Clarence (or anyone
else) from taking advantage of any divorce. It clearly doesn't fit the
interpretation in Kingmaker's Daughter! The portrayal of the countess of
Warwick as a coldhearted, spiteful mother locked in a tower broke my heart.
A quick look at Pollard's 'gold tablet' paper would have stopped the 'locked
in a tower' nonsense for a start. I can't see mother and daughter having an
easy relationship, all things considered, but the countess wasn't a
prisoner. (And it sets my teeth on edge when I hear or read the word
'kingmaker' these days. The feeling just keeps getting stronger. Anne would
never have heard her father called that, yet she uses it time and time again
in this book.)

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:27:14 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> How was it in Clarence's interests for his brother to retain his wife's
> property in case of divorce? Surely he'd want Anne to retain it in those
> circumstances. That would increase the chances, should Anne die before
> Isobel, of Clarence getting his hands on the lot.
>
> Karen

Karen, you're right - I wrote too quickly. Shall we say that Clarence's
insistence that the marriage was invalid forced Richard and the King to
address the question of what would happen to her half of the Beauchamp
inheritance should Clarence succeed in getting the marriage declared void.
The Act states that Richard should only keep Anne's share so long as he
continued trying to regularise the union with her, which is a sort of
compromise position and I imagine was the best they could get Clarence to
agree to.
Marie

>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:57:50 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the Act
> > of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce couldn't
> > possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
> > Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't that
> > Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
> > the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and one
> > (I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found.
>
> Hi Karen.
>
> I guess you are referring to the "brother-sister affinity" that Hicks
> claimed Richard and Anne suffered from as a result of Goerge's marriage to
> Isabel. Hicks just got it wrong, I'm afraid. You normally only needed one
> dispensation no matter how nmany impediments there were, and Hicks is right
> that the one that has been found doesn't cover everything - but he has
> misunderstood what it was for and the probable reason for its
> incompleteness. Unfortunately, the piece on the dispensation on the Society
> website isn't very helpful either.
>
> In a nutshell, the fact that Richard's brother had married Anne's sister
> constituted NO IMPEDIMENT WHATSOEVER to their own marriage. Affinity was the
> relationship between a person and the blood relatives of their spouse or
> sexual partner: you couldn't marry your previous partner's relations up to
> 3rd cousin without a dispensation. Edward of Lancaster was Richard's second
> cousin once removed, and the dispensation that has been found (granted in
> April 1472) addresses that impediment: it is spot on. The likeliest reason
> that it doesn't mention the main impediments - of consanguinity, due to
> Richard and Anne being cousins to each other - is that it was already in
> place. Surely Warwick would have tried to get a dispensation for Anne's
> marriage to Richard as well as George's to Isabel in the hope that Richard
> could be persuaded to go ahead with it.
> My personal opinion is that the mention of possible divorce in the Act of
> Parliament was inserted to satisfy Clarence, who was claiming the marriage
> was invalid because Richard had taken Anne by force (we know from the
> Milanese Papers that Clarence was going around saying this. It's a
> complicated one, that. As far as the Church was concerned, as long as it
> could be demonstrated that Anne herself had consented, then the marriage was
> valid. But the common law - and landed society in general - held it to be a
> sort of rape if a girl - particularly an heiress - was seduced away by a
> suitor her family didn't approve of. Clarence presumably saw himself in loco
> parentis, and had never consented to Anne bringing Richard her share of the
> inheritance.
> There's been so much tosh written about Richard's marriage, and it's really
> sad that Philippa G is perpetuating it. I haven't read her book on Anne
> Neville - I read the first one, on Elizabeth Woodville, and vowed to waste
> any more of my precious time on any more.
>
> Marie
>
> That
> > condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have been
> > agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
> > divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed his
> > support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in place.
> >
> > I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
> > lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
> > clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
> > lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level of
> > detail, either, it does my head in!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get annoyed
> > when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc., as
> > it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
> > correct in the bigger picture.
> >
> > For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> > hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> > law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> > you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> > Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> > dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> > reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> > said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> > bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of
his
> > > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
> > > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly
covers
> > > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are
weepers
> > > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > David,
> > > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't
believe
> > > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > > Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > > >
> > > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended
to
> > > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time,
since
> > > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and
Elizabeth
> of
> > > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel
to
> > > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard
would
> > > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > > proves that.
> > > >
> > > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever
seen
> > > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards.
Clearly
> > > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were
engaged
> in
> > > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> there
> > > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > > Tudor thing.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that
> was
> > > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the
Rous
> > > > Roll.
> > > >
> > > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do
> not
> > > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> found
> > > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > > >
> > > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> > > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the
Clarence
> > face
> > > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> from
> > > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> can't
> > > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read
it.
> > > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines
re
> > > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire
change
> > of
> > > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> not!
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can
> and
> > it
> > > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come
> out
> > > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first
and
> > > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Looking at the wording of the clause, there was definitely some reason to
> doubt the legality of the marriage at that time.

Indeed, but as I say I doubt that it was anything to do with lack of a dispensation. Why on earth would Warwick NOT have got a dispensation for Richard and anne's marriage along with the dispensation for Clarence and Isabel? Two separate contemporary sources claim that he was planning just such a double match for his daughters. The Vatican copy of Clarence's dispensation has never been found either.
What Clarence was complaining about in late 1473/ early 1474 was that Richard had married Anne by force. This is the mention in the Calendar of Milanese State Papers. It was written on 7th February 1474 by the ambassador at Louis' court shortly after the arrival there of Oxford's brother Richard de Vere. The ambassador wrote home about Oxford's plight (this was when he was stuck in St Michael's Mount with no provisions), adding:
"On the other hand, the Duke of Lancaster [he clearly means Gloucester], who by force had taken to wife the daughter of the late Earl of Warwick, who had been married to the Prince of Wales, was constantly preparing for war with the Duke of Clarence. The latter, because his brother, King Edward, had promised him Warwick's country, did not want the former to have it, by reason of his marriage with the earl's second daughter." (CMP p. 178) I'm quite sure (although Hicks refutes any such suggestion) that Clarence and Oxford had been in league with their armed activities in 1473, so Richard de Vere was probably well placed to give information on Clarence's activities. Remember that the Countess of Oxford was Isabel and Anne's aunt. It sounds as though Clarence's consent to the match had never got beyond that reported by the Pastons in February 1472: that Richard could marry Anne, but only if she came without any lands.

Anyhow, if Clarence could make the claim for force stick it would indeed have invalidated the marriage: consent by both parties was necessary to a valid marriage. But unless Anne really had been forced to go through the marriage, and either had not consummated or had only done so by being violently raped, Clarence's case was weak in terms of canon law. Maybe, like a lot of people, he didn't properly understand the canon law's lack of interest in the wishes of the family.
I think a big plank in Clarence's case would have been Richard's "abduction" of Anne. This could indeed have caused problems in demonstrating her consent, and that is probably why Richard placed her in sanctuary rather than in his own household.

When I say the clause about Richard retaining the lands in the event of divorce was a compromise, I do so because he was only being allowed to keep them so long as he went on trying to make a valid marriage with Anne. Should he give up and marry someone else, he would lose them. In practice, someone in Richard's position is highly unlikely to have stayed single all his life and given up the chance of having his own heirs. What this clause really did, I think, was to offer Richard a breathing space in the (unlikely) event of annulment in order to get the Church's blessing for a second attempt at the marriage in circumstances that clearly demonstrated Anne's free consent - perhaps she could have been placed under Archbishop Bourchier's personal protection or something.
And, yes, of course Anne knew all about it.

Marie


There's nothing in the
> reference list in Kingmaker's Daughter to suggest that Gregory even looked
> at the relevant Rolls of Parliament. The real countess of Warwick was clued
> up enough to understand the clause, as was Anne, no doubt. Not sure I see
> the clause as a compromise, more of an attempt to block Clarence (or anyone
> else) from taking advantage of any divorce. It clearly doesn't fit the
> interpretation in Kingmaker's Daughter! The portrayal of the countess of
> Warwick as a coldhearted, spiteful mother locked in a tower broke my heart.
> A quick look at Pollard's 'gold tablet' paper would have stopped the 'locked
> in a tower' nonsense for a start. I can't see mother and daughter having an
> easy relationship, all things considered, but the countess wasn't a
> prisoner. (And it sets my teeth on edge when I hear or read the word
> 'kingmaker' these days. The feeling just keeps getting stronger. Anne would
> never have heard her father called that, yet she uses it time and time again
> in this book.)


How silly! I should have thought that calling Warwick a kingmaker would have been infuriated King Edward if he had got to hear about it, and could even have been construed as treason! But a lot of PG's ideas in the White Queen were frankly even sillier. She had Elizabeth W replace York with some random lowly boy just before Richard came to take him away to the Tower, and neither Richard nor anybody else ever noticed. Then she spirited the real Duke of York on to a boat from the watergate of the Abbey crypt (yes, I know, the abbey isn't actually on the river; at least it wasn't when I last looked, which was Thursday; the entire palace would have been in the way). The crypt, incidentally, is where PG imagines Elizabeth Woodville and her children were confined in squalor during all the months they were in Sanctuary. If she'd done a bit of reading she would have discovered that the lady actually commandeered the Abbot's house.

Marie



>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:27:14 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > How was it in Clarence's interests for his brother to retain his wife's
> > property in case of divorce? Surely he'd want Anne to retain it in those
> > circumstances. That would increase the chances, should Anne die before
> > Isobel, of Clarence getting his hands on the lot.
> >
> > Karen
>
> Karen, you're right - I wrote too quickly. Shall we say that Clarence's
> insistence that the marriage was invalid forced Richard and the King to
> address the question of what would happen to her half of the Beauchamp
> inheritance should Clarence succeed in getting the marriage declared void.
> The Act states that Richard should only keep Anne's share so long as he
> continued trying to regularise the union with her, which is a sort of
> compromise position and I imagine was the best they could get Clarence to
> agree to.
> Marie
>
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:57:50 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the Act
> > > of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce couldn't
> > > possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
> > > Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't that
> > > Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
> > > the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and one
> > > (I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found.
> >
> > Hi Karen.
> >
> > I guess you are referring to the "brother-sister affinity" that Hicks
> > claimed Richard and Anne suffered from as a result of Goerge's marriage to
> > Isabel. Hicks just got it wrong, I'm afraid. You normally only needed one
> > dispensation no matter how nmany impediments there were, and Hicks is right
> > that the one that has been found doesn't cover everything - but he has
> > misunderstood what it was for and the probable reason for its
> > incompleteness. Unfortunately, the piece on the dispensation on the Society
> > website isn't very helpful either.
> >
> > In a nutshell, the fact that Richard's brother had married Anne's sister
> > constituted NO IMPEDIMENT WHATSOEVER to their own marriage. Affinity was the
> > relationship between a person and the blood relatives of their spouse or
> > sexual partner: you couldn't marry your previous partner's relations up to
> > 3rd cousin without a dispensation. Edward of Lancaster was Richard's second
> > cousin once removed, and the dispensation that has been found (granted in
> > April 1472) addresses that impediment: it is spot on. The likeliest reason
> > that it doesn't mention the main impediments - of consanguinity, due to
> > Richard and Anne being cousins to each other - is that it was already in
> > place. Surely Warwick would have tried to get a dispensation for Anne's
> > marriage to Richard as well as George's to Isabel in the hope that Richard
> > could be persuaded to go ahead with it.
> > My personal opinion is that the mention of possible divorce in the Act of
> > Parliament was inserted to satisfy Clarence, who was claiming the marriage
> > was invalid because Richard had taken Anne by force (we know from the
> > Milanese Papers that Clarence was going around saying this. It's a
> > complicated one, that. As far as the Church was concerned, as long as it
> > could be demonstrated that Anne herself had consented, then the marriage was
> > valid. But the common law - and landed society in general - held it to be a
> > sort of rape if a girl - particularly an heiress - was seduced away by a
> > suitor her family didn't approve of. Clarence presumably saw himself in loco
> > parentis, and had never consented to Anne bringing Richard her share of the
> > inheritance.
> > There's been so much tosh written about Richard's marriage, and it's really
> > sad that Philippa G is perpetuating it. I haven't read her book on Anne
> > Neville - I read the first one, on Elizabeth Woodville, and vowed to waste
> > any more of my precious time on any more.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > That
> > > condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have been
> > > agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
> > > divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed his
> > > support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in place.
> > >
> > > I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
> > > lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
> > > clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
> > > lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level of
> > > detail, either, it does my head in!
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
> > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get annoyed
> > > when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc., as
> > > it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
> > > correct in the bigger picture.
> > >
> > > For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> > > hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> > > law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> > > you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> > > Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> > > dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> > > reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> > > said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> > > bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > > > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of
> his
> > > > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > > > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > > > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their bones
> > > > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show him,
> > > > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly
> covers
> > > > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > > > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > > > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law Richard
> > > > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are
> weepers
> > > > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well that
> > > > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > > > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > > > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > David,
> > > > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in the
> > > > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't
> believe
> > > > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > > > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > > > <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > > > Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters tended
> to
> > > > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time,
> since
> > > > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and
> Elizabeth
> > of
> > > > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel
> to
> > > > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard
> would
> > > > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's death
> > > > > proves that.
> > > > >
> > > > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever
> seen
> > > > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards.
> Clearly
> > > > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were
> engaged
> > in
> > > > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> > there
> > > > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more a
> > > > > Tudor thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but that
> > was
> > > > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the
> Rous
> > > > > Roll.
> > > > >
> > > > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I do
> > not
> > > > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> > found
> > > > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you, the
> > > > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the
> Clarence
> > > face
> > > > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> > from
> > > > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > Gregory
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> > can't
> > > > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read
> it.
> > > > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially storylines
> re
> > > > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire
> change
> > > of
> > > > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> > not!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she can
> > and
> > > it
> > > > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to come
> > out
> > > > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first
> and
> > > > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Whatever the concerns about the marriage, the 'if divorced' clause doesn't
read to me like any kind of compromise with Clarence. A compromise between
Anne and Richard, perhaps, but not Clarence.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:58:39 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Looking at the wording of the clause, there was definitely some reason to
> doubt the legality of the marriage at that time.

Indeed, but as I say I doubt that it was anything to do with lack of a
dispensation. Why on earth would Warwick NOT have got a dispensation for
Richard and anne's marriage along with the dispensation for Clarence and
Isabel? Two separate contemporary sources claim that he was planning just
such a double match for his daughters. The Vatican copy of Clarence's
dispensation has never been found either.
What Clarence was complaining about in late 1473/ early 1474 was that
Richard had married Anne by force. This is the mention in the Calendar of
Milanese State Papers. It was written on 7th February 1474 by the ambassador
at Louis' court shortly after the arrival there of Oxford's brother Richard
de Vere. The ambassador wrote home about Oxford's plight (this was when he
was stuck in St Michael's Mount with no provisions), adding:
"On the other hand, the Duke of Lancaster [he clearly means Gloucester], who
by force had taken to wife the daughter of the late Earl of Warwick, who had
been married to the Prince of Wales, was constantly preparing for war with
the Duke of Clarence. The latter, because his brother, King Edward, had
promised him Warwick's country, did not want the former to have it, by
reason of his marriage with the earl's second daughter." (CMP p. 178) I'm
quite sure (although Hicks refutes any such suggestion) that Clarence and
Oxford had been in league with their armed activities in 1473, so Richard de
Vere was probably well placed to give information on Clarence's activities.
Remember that the Countess of Oxford was Isabel and Anne's aunt. It sounds
as though Clarence's consent to the match had never got beyond that reported
by the Pastons in February 1472: that Richard could marry Anne, but only if
she came without any lands.

Anyhow, if Clarence could make the claim for force stick it would indeed
have invalidated the marriage: consent by both parties was necessary to a
valid marriage. But unless Anne really had been forced to go through the
marriage, and either had not consummated or had only done so by being
violently raped, Clarence's case was weak in terms of canon law. Maybe, like
a lot of people, he didn't properly understand the canon law's lack of
interest in the wishes of the family.
I think a big plank in Clarence's case would have been Richard's "abduction"
of Anne. This could indeed have caused problems in demonstrating her
consent, and that is probably why Richard placed her in sanctuary rather
than in his own household.

When I say the clause about Richard retaining the lands in the event of
divorce was a compromise, I do so because he was only being allowed to keep
them so long as he went on trying to make a valid marriage with Anne. Should
he give up and marry someone else, he would lose them. In practice, someone
in Richard's position is highly unlikely to have stayed single all his life
and given up the chance of having his own heirs. What this clause really
did, I think, was to offer Richard a breathing space in the (unlikely) event
of annulment in order to get the Church's blessing for a second attempt at
the marriage in circumstances that clearly demonstrated Anne's free consent
- perhaps she could have been placed under Archbishop Bourchier's personal
protection or something.
And, yes, of course Anne knew all about it.

Marie

There's nothing in the
> reference list in Kingmaker's Daughter to suggest that Gregory even looked
> at the relevant Rolls of Parliament. The real countess of Warwick was clued
> up enough to understand the clause, as was Anne, no doubt. Not sure I see
> the clause as a compromise, more of an attempt to block Clarence (or anyone
> else) from taking advantage of any divorce. It clearly doesn't fit the
> interpretation in Kingmaker's Daughter! The portrayal of the countess of
> Warwick as a coldhearted, spiteful mother locked in a tower broke my heart.
> A quick look at Pollard's 'gold tablet' paper would have stopped the 'locked
> in a tower' nonsense for a start. I can't see mother and daughter having an
> easy relationship, all things considered, but the countess wasn't a
> prisoner. (And it sets my teeth on edge when I hear or read the word
> 'kingmaker' these days. The feeling just keeps getting stronger. Anne would
> never have heard her father called that, yet she uses it time and time again
> in this book.)

How silly! I should have thought that calling Warwick a kingmaker would have
been infuriated King Edward if he had got to hear about it, and could even
have been construed as treason! But a lot of PG's ideas in the White Queen
were frankly even sillier. She had Elizabeth W replace York with some random
lowly boy just before Richard came to take him away to the Tower, and
neither Richard nor anybody else ever noticed. Then she spirited the real
Duke of York on to a boat from the watergate of the Abbey crypt (yes, I
know, the abbey isn't actually on the river; at least it wasn't when I last
looked, which was Thursday; the entire palace would have been in the way).
The crypt, incidentally, is where PG imagines Elizabeth Woodville and her
children were confined in squalor during all the months they were in
Sanctuary. If she'd done a bit of reading she would have discovered that the
lady actually commandeered the Abbot's house.

Marie

>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:27:14 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > How was it in Clarence's interests for his brother to retain his wife's
> > property in case of divorce? Surely he'd want Anne to retain it in those
> > circumstances. That would increase the chances, should Anne die before
> > Isobel, of Clarence getting his hands on the lot.
> >
> > Karen
>
> Karen, you're right - I wrote too quickly. Shall we say that Clarence's
> insistence that the marriage was invalid forced Richard and the King to
> address the question of what would happen to her half of the Beauchamp
> inheritance should Clarence succeed in getting the marriage declared void.
> The Act states that Richard should only keep Anne's share so long as he
> continued trying to regularise the union with her, which is a sort of
> compromise position and I imagine was the best they could get Clarence to
> agree to.
> Marie
>
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:57:50 -0000
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the
Act
> > > of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce
couldn't
> > > possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
> > > Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't
that
> > > Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
> > > the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and
one
> > > (I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found.
> >
> > Hi Karen.
> >
> > I guess you are referring to the "brother-sister affinity" that Hicks
> > claimed Richard and Anne suffered from as a result of Goerge's marriage to
> > Isabel. Hicks just got it wrong, I'm afraid. You normally only needed one
> > dispensation no matter how nmany impediments there were, and Hicks is right
> > that the one that has been found doesn't cover everything - but he has
> > misunderstood what it was for and the probable reason for its
> > incompleteness. Unfortunately, the piece on the dispensation on the Society
> > website isn't very helpful either.
> >
> > In a nutshell, the fact that Richard's brother had married Anne's sister
> > constituted NO IMPEDIMENT WHATSOEVER to their own marriage. Affinity was the
> > relationship between a person and the blood relatives of their spouse or
> > sexual partner: you couldn't marry your previous partner's relations up to
> > 3rd cousin without a dispensation. Edward of Lancaster was Richard's second
> > cousin once removed, and the dispensation that has been found (granted in
> > April 1472) addresses that impediment: it is spot on. The likeliest reason
> > that it doesn't mention the main impediments - of consanguinity, due to
> > Richard and Anne being cousins to each other - is that it was already in
> > place. Surely Warwick would have tried to get a dispensation for Anne's
> > marriage to Richard as well as George's to Isabel in the hope that Richard
> > could be persuaded to go ahead with it.
> > My personal opinion is that the mention of possible divorce in the Act of
> > Parliament was inserted to satisfy Clarence, who was claiming the marriage
> > was invalid because Richard had taken Anne by force (we know from the
> > Milanese Papers that Clarence was going around saying this. It's a
> > complicated one, that. As far as the Church was concerned, as long as it
> > could be demonstrated that Anne herself had consented, then the marriage was
> > valid. But the common law - and landed society in general - held it to be a
> > sort of rape if a girl - particularly an heiress - was seduced away by a
> > suitor her family didn't approve of. Clarence presumably saw himself in loco
> > parentis, and had never consented to Anne bringing Richard her share of the
> > inheritance.
> > There's been so much tosh written about Richard's marriage, and it's really
> > sad that Philippa G is perpetuating it. I haven't read her book on Anne
> > Neville - I read the first one, on Elizabeth Woodville, and vowed to waste
> > any more of my precious time on any more.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > That
> > > condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have
been
> > > agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
> > > divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed
his
> > > support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in
place.
> > >
> > > I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
> > > lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
> > > clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
> > > lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level
of
> > > detail, either, it does my head in!
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
> > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get
annoyed
> > > when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc.,
as
> > > it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
> > > correct in the bigger picture.
> > >
> > > For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> > > hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> > > law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> > > you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> > > Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> > > dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> > > reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> > > said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> > > bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > > > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of
> his
> > > > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > > > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > > > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their
bones
> > > > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show
him,
> > > > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly
> covers
> > > > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > > > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > > > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law
Richard
> > > > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are
> weepers
> > > > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well
that
> > > > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > > > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > > > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > David,
> > > > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in
the
> > > > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't
> believe
> > > > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > > > To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > > > <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of
Philippa
> > > > > Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters
tended
> to
> > > > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time,
> since
> > > > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and
> Elizabeth
> > of
> > > > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel
> to
> > > > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard
> would
> > > > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's
death
> > > > > proves that.
> > > > >
> > > > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever
> seen
> > > > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards.
> Clearly
> > > > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were
> engaged
> > in
> > > > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> > there
> > > > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more
a
> > > > > Tudor thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but
that
> > was
> > > > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the
> Rous
> > > > > Roll.
> > > > >
> > > > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I
do
> > not
> > > > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> > found
> > > > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you,
the
> > > > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the
> Clarence
> > > face
> > > > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> > from
> > > > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > > > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > Gregory
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> > can't
> > > > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read
> it.
> > > > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially
storylines
> re
> > > > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire
> change
> > > of
> > > > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> > not!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she
can
> > and
> > > it
> > > > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to
come
> > out
> > > > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first
> and
> > > > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

He played the heroin addicted rent boy in CASUALTY verty well. Type-cast, the Daily Mail said.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>  
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
>  
> Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
>
>
>

I certainly wouldnt have bought the book if I had known it was a continuous theme throughout the book. Practically everything major happening is the result of Woodville magic...from the Neville family ordeal in the terrible storm at sea when Isobel was giving birth...to Warwick's death at Barnet....and Richard's sword arm becoming paralysed. Funny thing that...he must have gained the use of it in time for Bosworth.
Would not the Abbot of Westminster where La Woodville was holed up noticed that witchcraft was going on under his nose...? Karen has mentioned that witchcraft was touched upon in The Kings Grey Mare by Hawley Jarman but handled much better.

I assume, not having read it, that The White Queen was similar ..
It is my own fault, I did have misgivings and I should have waited to have a peek at it in a book shop before purchasing....

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> as much as i'm not a pg fan..witchcraft/mantic arts/occult was very much part of the medieval/renaissance lifestyle. therefore, pg is on track to include it. however, she should do more research on it, it to be credible.
>  
> it was the "new" protestant religion that began the persecution of witches and the so called (dark arts) in our modern era. people are either labelled evil or insane/crazy if they talk about it or research or practice it. much of our modern medicine comes from the alchemy..a dark art. sir isaac newton practiced it.
>  
> you can not have r3's era without the witchcraft/alchemy/astrological medicinal practices.
> this includes the voodoo doll like rituals of making others sick or improving their health.
> roslyn
>
> --- On Sat, 9/1/12, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Florence Dove <mdove9@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> To:
> Received: Saturday, September 1, 2012, 11:07 AM
>
>
> It's dreadful. And yes, witchcraft does seem to be a recurring theme. But I'm waiting for the vampires.
>
> Flo
>
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:31 PM, liz williams wrote:
>
> > Oh dear God please tell me that's a joke and not a quote from the book ....
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 21:42
> > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >   
> > "What say you, Edmund? Shall we show Lancaster the price to be paid for breaking the Christmas truce?"
> > "I think we've no choice, sir"
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 8:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >   
> > Oh dear, is it that bad?
> > 
> > I was at lunch today with people from work, talking about books and a couple of them said they liked Philippa Gregory.  I groaned and as usual shoved them firmly in the direction of Sharon Penman. 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012, 17:44
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >   
> > Thanks for that Liz....The actors/actresses are looking good arent they.
> >
> > Have finished the book a couple of days ago. Yes..ummm..well.....I hope they get the costumes right.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2196026/Rebecca-Ferguson-scoops-lead-role-BBC-adaptation-Philippa-Gregorys-The-Cousins-War-novels.html
> > > 
> > > Jeremy Irons son is playing Edward IV and this is the guy playing Richard http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2902567/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I felt I had no choice, Eileen. I run a Nevill blog and felt I needed to
read and review it. I haven't read any of the others.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:35:27 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory






I certainly wouldnt have bought the book if I had known it was a continuous
theme throughout the book. Practically everything major happening is the
result of Woodville magic...from the Neville family ordeal in the terrible
storm at sea when Isobel was giving birth...to Warwick's death at
Barnet....and Richard's sword arm becoming paralysed. Funny thing that...he
must have gained the use of it in time for Bosworth.
Would not the Abbot of Westminster where La Woodville was holed up noticed
that witchcraft was going on under his nose...? Karen has mentioned that
witchcraft was touched upon in The Kings Grey Mare by Hawley Jarman but
handled much better.

I assume, not having read it, that The White Queen was similar ..
It is my own fault, I did have misgivings and I should have waited to have a
peek at it in a book shop before purchasing....

I see you had no option other than to read it Karen....your Nevill blog....how do I find it...sounds interesting.....Eileen

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I felt I had no choice, Eileen. I run a Nevill blog and felt I needed to
> read and review it. I haven't read any of the others.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:35:27 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I certainly wouldnt have bought the book if I had known it was a continuous
> theme throughout the book. Practically everything major happening is the
> result of Woodville magic...from the Neville family ordeal in the terrible
> storm at sea when Isobel was giving birth...to Warwick's death at
> Barnet....and Richard's sword arm becoming paralysed. Funny thing that...he
> must have gained the use of it in time for Bosworth.
> Would not the Abbot of Westminster where La Woodville was holed up noticed
> that witchcraft was going on under his nose...? Karen has mentioned that
> witchcraft was touched upon in The Kings Grey Mare by Hawley Jarman but
> handled much better.
>
> I assume, not having read it, that The White Queen was similar ..
> It is my own fault, I did have misgivings and I should have waited to have a
> peek at it in a book shop before purchasing....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's here, Eileen:

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/

I've only linked it once to this forum, and that was a post about the
countess of Warwick. I'm taking a break from my research at the moment,
waiting for some documents from England, and working on something else in
the meantime. But when I am researching/writing, I post fairly regularly.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:57:57 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory






I see you had no option other than to read it Karen....your Nevill
blog....how do I find it...sounds interesting.....Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I felt I had no choice, Eileen. I run a Nevill blog and felt I needed to
> read and review it. I haven't read any of the others.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:35:27 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I certainly wouldnt have bought the book if I had known it was a continuous
> theme throughout the book. Practically everything major happening is the
> result of Woodville magic...from the Neville family ordeal in the terrible
> storm at sea when Isobel was giving birth...to Warwick's death at
> Barnet....and Richard's sword arm becoming paralysed. Funny thing that...he
> must have gained the use of it in time for Bosworth.
> Would not the Abbot of Westminster where La Woodville was holed up noticed
> that witchcraft was going on under his nose...? Karen has mentioned that
> witchcraft was touched upon in The Kings Grey Mare by Hawley Jarman but
> handled much better.
>
> I assume, not having read it, that The White Queen was similar ..
> It is my own fault, I did have misgivings and I should have waited to have a
> peek at it in a book shop before purchasing....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Very interesting stuff on the marriage dispensation...thank you Marie and Karen...

How very wise of Richard to take Anne to St Martins sanctuary....It speaks volumes of Richard and his attitude towards Anne. I think she was very fortunate in this aspect of her life. Richard was probably the only person who would have ensured that she got her share of the inheritance. He was close to her in age... she did not have to go abroad to marry someone she had never laid eyes on before .....and that she had known him from her childhood and probably already liked him was a good start to their marriage. I would have thought, without looking through rosecoloured specs, that those years were the happiest of their lives....Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I see you had no option other than to read it Karen....your Nevill blog....how do I find it...sounds interesting.....Eileen
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > I felt I had no choice, Eileen. I run a Nevill blog and felt I needed to
> > read and review it. I haven't read any of the others.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:35:27 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I certainly wouldnt have bought the book if I had known it was a continuous
> > theme throughout the book. Practically everything major happening is the
> > result of Woodville magic...from the Neville family ordeal in the terrible
> > storm at sea when Isobel was giving birth...to Warwick's death at
> > Barnet....and Richard's sword arm becoming paralysed. Funny thing that...he
> > must have gained the use of it in time for Bosworth.
> > Would not the Abbot of Westminster where La Woodville was holed up noticed
> > that witchcraft was going on under his nose...? Karen has mentioned that
> > witchcraft was touched upon in The Kings Grey Mare by Hawley Jarman but
> > handled much better.
> >
> > I assume, not having read it, that The White Queen was similar ..
> > It is my own fault, I did have misgivings and I should have waited to have a
> > peek at it in a book shop before purchasing....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Ive got it Karen ....loads of archives...goodo.......thank you Karen.. Eileen


--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> It's here, Eileen:
>
> http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/
>
> I've only linked it once to this forum, and that was a post about the
> countess of Warwick. I'm taking a break from my research at the moment,
> waiting for some documents from England, and working on something else in
> the meantime. But when I am researching/writing, I post fairly regularly.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:57:57 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I see you had no option other than to read it Karen....your Nevill
> blog....how do I find it...sounds interesting.....Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > I felt I had no choice, Eileen. I run a Nevill blog and felt I needed to
> > read and review it. I haven't read any of the others.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:35:27 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I certainly wouldnt have bought the book if I had known it was a continuous
> > theme throughout the book. Practically everything major happening is the
> > result of Woodville magic...from the Neville family ordeal in the terrible
> > storm at sea when Isobel was giving birth...to Warwick's death at
> > Barnet....and Richard's sword arm becoming paralysed. Funny thing that...he
> > must have gained the use of it in time for Bosworth.
> > Would not the Abbot of Westminster where La Woodville was holed up noticed
> > that witchcraft was going on under his nose...? Karen has mentioned that
> > witchcraft was touched upon in The Kings Grey Mare by Hawley Jarman but
> > handled much better.
> >
> > I assume, not having read it, that The White Queen was similar ..
> > It is my own fault, I did have misgivings and I should have waited to have a
> > peek at it in a book shop before purchasing....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry Karen, I'm really not following. This Act of Parliament WAS the settlement between Gloucester and Clarence over the Beauchamp inheritance. Also, the Church didn't interfere to annul marriages unless asked to adjudicate*. There was only be a problem with the marriage, therefore, because someone was impugning it: ie Clarence.

* Richard Helmholz is very good on marriage disputes, eg his 'Marriage Litigation in Medieval England'.

If you don't like the idea of Richard compromising, then perhaps look at it as an advance settlement of issues that would arise should Clarence succeed in his attempt to get the marriage annulled.
This settlement certainly weakened Clarence's motive for trying to get the marriage declared void, but it also shows that Richard and the King had failed to get Clarence's written agreement to drop the case altogether, which I'm sure is the option Richard would have preferred.

If force was all Clarence was claiming, then unless Anne was prepared to corroborate this the usual interpretation of the Church courts was that there was no case to answer. If she agreed that she had been married by force and fear, then she could not really try to marry the same man again afterwards.
That the dispensation for consanguinity never existed seems an idiotic idea to me because if this hadn't been acquired by Warwick in the 1460s then Richard and Anne would surely have requested it in 1472 along with the dispensation for affinity; there was no earthly reason why they shouldn't. The only other potential problem I can think of, having studied this question and racked my brains over it over a period of several years, is that perhaps they would have done better to have got all the impediments listed together in a single dispensation.

But the only objection of Clarence's to the marriage that we actually KNOW about is the one of force; anything else is speculation. And since Richard and Anne stayed married we must assume that Anne did not back Clarence up.

I suppose there is one obvious question, and that is: Why would Clarence have tried to get Richard's marriage annulled on such shaky grounds? I think there are several possible reasons:-
1) It was a very common bleat of families who disapproved of the choice of their heiress; the fact that it never got them anywhere didn't seem to deter. There was simply an increasing tendency for parliament to legislate to deter abductors.
2) Clarence's claim to have been arming to defend 'his' lands against Gloucester's incursion was probably, as John Paston suggested, a cover for treason; in other words he was really mobilising troops to challenge Edward for his throne. Had he succeeded, he could of course simply have confiscated Anne's share of the inheritance and got on with life at the top.

Marie




--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Whatever the concerns about the marriage, the 'if divorced' clause doesn't
> read to me like any kind of compromise with Clarence. A compromise between
> Anne and Richard, perhaps, but not Clarence.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:58:39 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Looking at the wording of the clause, there was definitely some reason to
> > doubt the legality of the marriage at that time.
>
> Indeed, but as I say I doubt that it was anything to do with lack of a
> dispensation. Why on earth would Warwick NOT have got a dispensation for
> Richard and anne's marriage along with the dispensation for Clarence and
> Isabel? Two separate contemporary sources claim that he was planning just
> such a double match for his daughters. The Vatican copy of Clarence's
> dispensation has never been found either.
> What Clarence was complaining about in late 1473/ early 1474 was that
> Richard had married Anne by force. This is the mention in the Calendar of
> Milanese State Papers. It was written on 7th February 1474 by the ambassador
> at Louis' court shortly after the arrival there of Oxford's brother Richard
> de Vere. The ambassador wrote home about Oxford's plight (this was when he
> was stuck in St Michael's Mount with no provisions), adding:
> "On the other hand, the Duke of Lancaster [he clearly means Gloucester], who
> by force had taken to wife the daughter of the late Earl of Warwick, who had
> been married to the Prince of Wales, was constantly preparing for war with
> the Duke of Clarence. The latter, because his brother, King Edward, had
> promised him Warwick's country, did not want the former to have it, by
> reason of his marriage with the earl's second daughter." (CMP p. 178) I'm
> quite sure (although Hicks refutes any such suggestion) that Clarence and
> Oxford had been in league with their armed activities in 1473, so Richard de
> Vere was probably well placed to give information on Clarence's activities.
> Remember that the Countess of Oxford was Isabel and Anne's aunt. It sounds
> as though Clarence's consent to the match had never got beyond that reported
> by the Pastons in February 1472: that Richard could marry Anne, but only if
> she came without any lands.
>
> Anyhow, if Clarence could make the claim for force stick it would indeed
> have invalidated the marriage: consent by both parties was necessary to a
> valid marriage. But unless Anne really had been forced to go through the
> marriage, and either had not consummated or had only done so by being
> violently raped, Clarence's case was weak in terms of canon law. Maybe, like
> a lot of people, he didn't properly understand the canon law's lack of
> interest in the wishes of the family.
> I think a big plank in Clarence's case would have been Richard's "abduction"
> of Anne. This could indeed have caused problems in demonstrating her
> consent, and that is probably why Richard placed her in sanctuary rather
> than in his own household.
>
> When I say the clause about Richard retaining the lands in the event of
> divorce was a compromise, I do so because he was only being allowed to keep
> them so long as he went on trying to make a valid marriage with Anne. Should
> he give up and marry someone else, he would lose them. In practice, someone
> in Richard's position is highly unlikely to have stayed single all his life
> and given up the chance of having his own heirs. What this clause really
> did, I think, was to offer Richard a breathing space in the (unlikely) event
> of annulment in order to get the Church's blessing for a second attempt at
> the marriage in circumstances that clearly demonstrated Anne's free consent
> - perhaps she could have been placed under Archbishop Bourchier's personal
> protection or something.
> And, yes, of course Anne knew all about it.
>
> Marie
>
> There's nothing in the
> > reference list in Kingmaker's Daughter to suggest that Gregory even looked
> > at the relevant Rolls of Parliament. The real countess of Warwick was clued
> > up enough to understand the clause, as was Anne, no doubt. Not sure I see
> > the clause as a compromise, more of an attempt to block Clarence (or anyone
> > else) from taking advantage of any divorce. It clearly doesn't fit the
> > interpretation in Kingmaker's Daughter! The portrayal of the countess of
> > Warwick as a coldhearted, spiteful mother locked in a tower broke my heart.
> > A quick look at Pollard's 'gold tablet' paper would have stopped the 'locked
> > in a tower' nonsense for a start. I can't see mother and daughter having an
> > easy relationship, all things considered, but the countess wasn't a
> > prisoner. (And it sets my teeth on edge when I hear or read the word
> > 'kingmaker' these days. The feeling just keeps getting stronger. Anne would
> > never have heard her father called that, yet she uses it time and time again
> > in this book.)
>
> How silly! I should have thought that calling Warwick a kingmaker would have
> been infuriated King Edward if he had got to hear about it, and could even
> have been construed as treason! But a lot of PG's ideas in the White Queen
> were frankly even sillier. She had Elizabeth W replace York with some random
> lowly boy just before Richard came to take him away to the Tower, and
> neither Richard nor anybody else ever noticed. Then she spirited the real
> Duke of York on to a boat from the watergate of the Abbey crypt (yes, I
> know, the abbey isn't actually on the river; at least it wasn't when I last
> looked, which was Thursday; the entire palace would have been in the way).
> The crypt, incidentally, is where PG imagines Elizabeth Woodville and her
> children were confined in squalor during all the months they were in
> Sanctuary. If she'd done a bit of reading she would have discovered that the
> lady actually commandeered the Abbot's house.
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:27:14 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > How was it in Clarence's interests for his brother to retain his wife's
> > > property in case of divorce? Surely he'd want Anne to retain it in those
> > > circumstances. That would increase the chances, should Anne die before
> > > Isobel, of Clarence getting his hands on the lot.
> > >
> > > Karen
> >
> > Karen, you're right - I wrote too quickly. Shall we say that Clarence's
> > insistence that the marriage was invalid forced Richard and the King to
> > address the question of what would happen to her half of the Beauchamp
> > inheritance should Clarence succeed in getting the marriage declared void.
> > The Act states that Richard should only keep Anne's share so long as he
> > continued trying to regularise the union with her, which is a sort of
> > compromise position and I imagine was the best they could get Clarence to
> > agree to.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 23:57:50 -0000
> > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa Gregory
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I agree with you, Eileen. The whole business about the clause in the
> Act
> > > > of Parliament granting Richard Anne's property should they divorce
> couldn't
> > > > possibly have been unknown to Anne. And the portrayal of the Countess of
> > > > Warwick grated on my nerves horribly. The implication of that Act isn't
> that
> > > > Richard could (or even thought he might) put the marriage aside. And, yes,
> > > > the most important dispensation was granted, but they needed several and
> one
> > > > (I believe the brother/sister one) either wasn't or hasn't been found.
> > >
> > > Hi Karen.
> > >
> > > I guess you are referring to the "brother-sister affinity" that Hicks
> > > claimed Richard and Anne suffered from as a result of Goerge's marriage to
> > > Isabel. Hicks just got it wrong, I'm afraid. You normally only needed one
> > > dispensation no matter how nmany impediments there were, and Hicks is right
> > > that the one that has been found doesn't cover everything - but he has
> > > misunderstood what it was for and the probable reason for its
> > > incompleteness. Unfortunately, the piece on the dispensation on the Society
> > > website isn't very helpful either.
> > >
> > > In a nutshell, the fact that Richard's brother had married Anne's sister
> > > constituted NO IMPEDIMENT WHATSOEVER to their own marriage. Affinity was the
> > > relationship between a person and the blood relatives of their spouse or
> > > sexual partner: you couldn't marry your previous partner's relations up to
> > > 3rd cousin without a dispensation. Edward of Lancaster was Richard's second
> > > cousin once removed, and the dispensation that has been found (granted in
> > > April 1472) addresses that impediment: it is spot on. The likeliest reason
> > > that it doesn't mention the main impediments - of consanguinity, due to
> > > Richard and Anne being cousins to each other - is that it was already in
> > > place. Surely Warwick would have tried to get a dispensation for Anne's
> > > marriage to Richard as well as George's to Isabel in the hope that Richard
> > > could be persuaded to go ahead with it.
> > > My personal opinion is that the mention of possible divorce in the Act of
> > > Parliament was inserted to satisfy Clarence, who was claiming the marriage
> > > was invalid because Richard had taken Anne by force (we know from the
> > > Milanese Papers that Clarence was going around saying this. It's a
> > > complicated one, that. As far as the Church was concerned, as long as it
> > > could be demonstrated that Anne herself had consented, then the marriage was
> > > valid. But the common law - and landed society in general - held it to be a
> > > sort of rape if a girl - particularly an heiress - was seduced away by a
> > > suitor her family didn't approve of. Clarence presumably saw himself in loco
> > > parentis, and had never consented to Anne bringing Richard her share of the
> > > inheritance.
> > > There's been so much tosh written about Richard's marriage, and it's really
> > > sad that Philippa G is perpetuating it. I haven't read her book on Anne
> > > Neville - I read the first one, on Elizabeth Woodville, and vowed to waste
> > > any more of my precious time on any more.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > That
> > > > condition to the marriage must have been in the contract, and must have
> been
> > > > agreed to by Anne, who herself wouldn't have thought it likely that they'd
> > > > divorce. I'd say Richard drove a pretty hard bargain and Anne so needed
> his
> > > > support that she agreed to something she doubted would ever be put in
> place.
> > > >
> > > > I really don't notice stuff like clothes, not the detail anyway. I know a
> > > > lot of readers do. I guess I'm just fashion blind and descriptions of
> > > > clothes (or anything else for that matter) in excruciating detail, which a
> > > > lot of readers really love, I tend to skim over. I don't write that level
> of
> > > > detail, either, it does my head in!
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:29:50 -0000
> > > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK Karen....Im sorry to have banged on about it.....Trouble is I get
> annoyed
> > > > when I see an author making errors in the minutiae such as costume etc.,
> as
> > > > it makes me wonder if they have been slack in getting the known facts
> > > > correct in the bigger picture.
> > > >
> > > > For example....pages 243-244..Anne's mother informs her that she has been
> > > > hoodwinked by Richard into a marriage that can be 'put aside'... It's the
> > > > law of the land" she laughs thinly, like a cackling witch. A new law and
> > > > you didnt know"..as their marriage required a dispensation from the
> > > > Pope....which Richard never bothered to get. Yet it is known that the
> > > > dispensation was sought after and was given......I bet a lot of people
> > > > reading this book are going to believe the version given therein...As I
> > > > said...it is fiction and therefore we must make allowances for a little
> > > > bending of the truth but this is pretty massive....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Nevill earl of Warwick was never known as the kingmaker in his
> > > > > lifetime. And, you're right, he was buried at Bisham, along with two of
> > his
> > > > > brothers, a sister-in-law and his parents, he wished to be buried in the
> > > > > Beauchamp Chapel, but circumstances didn't allow that. During the
> > > > > dissolution of the monasteries, their tombs were destroyed and their
> bones
> > > > > scattered. If you look closely at the brass that is believed to show
> him,
> > > > > you'll see that the figure has facial hair, the mourning hood hardly
> > covers
> > > > > anything. I doesn't really bother me, one way or the other. If he had a
> > > > > beard, then he had a beard, if he didn't, he didn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:09:17 -0000
> > > > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I didnt think there was a brass to the Kingmaker in the Beauchamp
> > > > > Chapel...there is the wonderful brass effigy of his father-in-law
> Richard
> > > > > Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. But it doesnt have a beard. There are
> > weepers
> > > > > around the sides of the tomb, and one of them is the Kingmaker (well
> that
> > > > > is what the guide told me), the face obscured by a mourning hood...
> > > > > Richard Neville Earl of Warwick known as the Kingmaker is buried
> > > > > elsewhere...Bisham I think. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David,
> > > > > > I wasn't referring here to any later paintings, but to the brass in
> the
> > > > > > Beauchamp Chapel, which is contemporary. Apart from this, I don't
> > believe
> > > > > > there are any contemporary likenesses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 21:13:29 +0100 (BST)
> > > > > > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > > > > <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re: tv adaptation of
> Philippa
> > > > > > Gregory
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the 15th century men who didn't shave were considered effeminate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Warwick "portrait" with a ginger beard is clearly a much later
> > > > > > depiction, complete with outrageous late Tudor costume. Painters
> tended
> > to
> > > > > > depict people from previous eras in the fashions of their own time,
> > since
> > > > > > there were probably no contemporary likenesses of Warwick available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@
> > > > > > <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> > > > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 13:59
> > > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen.....what did you think about the storyline re Richard and
> > Elizabeth
> > > of
> > > > > > York....the famous changes of dresses as mentioned by Croyland...novel
> > to
> > > > > > say the least. I would have thought that was the last thing Richard
> > would
> > > > > > have wanted people thinking about...his swift denial after Anne's
> death
> > > > > > proves that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I base my belief on Warwick never having a beard as I have never ever
> > seen
> > > > > > any church monument/effigy from that period sporting one. Contemporary
> > > > > > portraits of that time as in Richard's and Edward's, drawings on
> > > > > > manuscripts, the famous Rous roll, Beauchamp Pageant...no beards.
> > Clearly
> > > > > > it was not the fashion at that time ....and maybe those that were
> > engaged
> > > in
> > > > > > fighting would have found a beard impractical with a helm. Of course
> > > there
> > > > > > must have been some that had beards although I thought they were more
> a
> > > > > > Tudor thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have seen a portrait of George Duke of Clarence with a beard but
> that
> > > was
> > > > > > a 16th or 17th century painting. He certainly has not got one in the
> > Rous
> > > > > > Roll.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All in all....maybe the author should have steered clear of mention
> > > > > > Warwick's beard which she managed to get in a couple of time...why I
> do
> > > not
> > > > > > know. As you say he could have had one from time to time but to me I
> > > found
> > > > > > it rather odd it was even mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with you re the Countess of Warwick....extraordinary....!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course the book is fiction and therefore open to embellisments and
> > > > > > distortion but surely that can be done in such a way as to make you,
> the
> > > > > > reader wonder if this is what could have happened....
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > > > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen, I agree with your overall assessment of this book, the
> > Clarence
> > > > face
> > > > > > > turn had me scratching my head and her countess of Warwick left me
> > > > > > > speechless. As to Warwick with a beard, there are two (admittedly
> > > > > > > not-from-life) portrayals of him with a beard. He may have grown one
> > > from
> > > > > > > time to time, who knows?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:13:42 -0000
> > > > > > > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: tv adaptation of Philippa
> > > > Gregory
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Liz...Its pretty lightweight...many chapters only 2/3 pages long. .I
> > > can't
> > > > > > > say too much as I could spoil it for some people who havent yet read
> > it.
> > > > > > > Lets say I found a lot of it highly implausible especially
> storylines
> > re
> > > > > > > Anne and her mother., Elizabeth Woodville, Clarence has an entire
> > change
> > > > of
> > > > > > > character,...a lot of witchcraft going on...characters very wishy
> > > > > > > washy...and silly little things like Warwick having a beard. He did
> > > not!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think Philippa Gregory is churning out books now as fast as she
> can
> > > and
> > > > it
> > > > > > > shows..There is a lack of substance...There is another one due to
> come
> > > out
> > > > > > > soon...I think thats about Elizabeth of York...But this was my first
> > and
> > > > > > > last book written by this author.
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>