Rather interesting

http://www.finelinegraphology.com/examplerichardIII.htm

Analyzation of Richard's character through his handwriting. I didn't even
know that things written by his hand still existed!

-Victoria
"Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-Oscar
Wilde

Hi Victoria

First off, let me see I've noticed your posts re: Richard for some
time, but haven't yet got round to saying it's nice to see a
TudorTalk colleague on this and other lists. I hope you are enjoying
your new interest in Richard, and hope in the future the man proves
to be as worthwhile subject of research for you as I have found him
to be.

Richard has left us a number of personal handwritten notes. The
earliest is a note he wrote to Sir John Say from Castle Rising in
Norfolk when he was 16 or 17 asking for a loan of £100 which he
promised to repay by a certain date. Richard explains he's a little
light on funds because his brother E4 has called him north
unexpectedly (where there were rebellion, but he doesn't mention the
reason, IIRC).

There's also a surviving note he wrote to his mum when he was King
that was written after her retainer Wm. Collingbourne was executed
for treason (not for writing the 'The Cat, the Rat and Lovel Our Dog
Rule All England Under the Hog' rhyme as is commonly supposed, BTW,
but because in fact Collingbourne offered financial support to Henry
Tudor).

But perhaps the most famous surviving personal note is the postscript
he adds to a note to John Russell, R3's Chancellor, when he finds out
about the his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham's Rebellion, when he
calls Buckingham 'the most untrue creature living'. The hurt, the
shock, the surprise and the anger of finding out his closest ally has
turned his coat is absolutely *palpable* when you see that letter.

Richard was clearly hopping mad the day he wrote it - and utterly
determined to bring Buckingham to book. That can be seen in every
pen stroke! He has so much to say on the matter he uses every
available space, even writing up the margins! The Postscript Letter
is repro'd in a number of Books on Richard, if you're interested:
the Tony Pollard book on 'The Princes in the Tower', and
Hammond/Sutton's 'Road to Bosworth' being just two that spring to
mind, though Michael Hicks may've also included it in his reprint
biof of R3. The Public Record Office at Kew used to have it on their
website, too, last year.

If they ever let members of the public 'adaopt' historical documents
at the PRO, like they do animals at London Zoo, like they were
proposing at one time, that's the one I'd adopt! ;)

I know nowt about graphology, but I find Richard's handwriting very
interesting. For instance, it's bigger and bolder and 'less
disciplined' than the secretaries' hand of John Kendall and Wm.
Herbert, who both wrote and signed a bundle of official papers that
are also filed at the PRO in Kew.

Regards - Lorraine

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> http://www.finelinegraphology.com/examplerichardIII.htm
>
> Analyzation of Richard's character through his handwriting. I
didn't even
> know that things written by his hand still existed!
>
> -Victoria
> "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-
Oscar
> Wilde
>
>
>

Not sure if this went first time, so apols for any repat showing!

Hi Victoria

First off, let me see I've noticed your posts re: Richard for some
time, but haven't yet got round to saying it's nice to see a a
TudorTalk colleague on this and other lists. I hope you are enjoying
your new interest in Richard, and hope the man proves to be as
worthwhile subject of research for you as I have found him to be.

Richard has left us a number of personal handwritten notes. The
earliest is a note he wrote to Sir John Say from Castle Rising in
Norfolk when he was 16 or 17 asking for a loan of £100 which he
promised to repay by a certain date. Richard explains he's a little
light on funds because his brother E4 has called him north
unexpectedly (where there were rebellion, but he doesn't mention the
reason, IIRC).

There's also a surviving note he wrote to his mum
when he was King that was written after her retainer Wm.
Collingbourne was executed for treason (not for writing the 'The Cat,
the Rat and Lovel Our Dog Rule All England Under the Hog' rhyme as is
commonly supposed, BTW, but because in fact Collingbourne offered
financial support to Henry Tudor).

But perhaps the most famous surviving personal note is the postscript
he adds to a note to John Russell, R3's Chancellor, when he finds out
about the his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham's Rebellion, when he
calls Buckingham 'the most untrue creature living'. The hurt, the
shock, the surprise and the anger of finding out his closest ally has
turned his coat is absolutely *palpable* when you see that letter.

Richard was clearly hopping mad the day he wrote it - and utterly
determined to bring Buckingham to book. That can be seen in every
pen stroke! He has so much to say on the matter he uses every
available space, even writing up the margins! The Postscript Letter
is repro'd in a number of Books on Richard, if you're interested:
the Tony Pollard book on 'The Princes in the Tower', and
Hammond/Sutton's 'Road to Bosworth' being just two that spring to
mind, though Michael Hicks may've also included it in his reprint
biof of R3. The Public Record Office at Kew used to have it on their
website, too, last year. If they ever let members of the
public 'adaopt' historical documents at the PRO, like they do animals
at London Zoo, like they were proposing at one time, that's the one
I'd adopt! ;)

I know nowt about graphology, but I find Richard's handwriting very
interesting. For istance, it's bigger and bolder and 'less
disciplined' than the secretaries' hand of John
Kendall and Wm. Herbert, who both wrote and signed a bundle of
official papers that are also filed at the PRO in Kew.

Regards - Lorraine

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> http://www.finelinegraphology.com/examplerichardIII.htm
>
> Analyzation of Richard's character through his handwriting. I
didn't even
> know that things written by his hand still existed!
>
> -Victoria
> "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin of pretty ones."-
Oscar
> Wilde
>
>
>

At 11:43 PM 1/25/03 -0000, Lorraine wrote:

>
>But perhaps the most famous surviving personal note is the postscript
>he adds to a note to John Russell, R3's Chancellor, when he finds out
>about the his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham's Rebellion, when he
>calls Buckingham 'the most untrue creature living'. The hurt, the
>shock, the surprise and the anger of finding out his closest ally has
>turned his coat is absolutely *palpable* when you see that letter.
>
>Richard was clearly hopping mad the day he wrote it - and utterly
>determined to bring Buckingham to book. That can be seen in every
>pen stroke! He has so much to say on the matter he uses every
>available space, even writing up the margins! The Postscript Letter
>is repro'd in a number of Books on Richard, if you're interested:
>the Tony Pollard book on 'The Princes in the Tower', and
>Hammond/Sutton's 'Road to Bosworth' being just two that spring to
>mind, though Michael Hicks may've also included it in his reprint
>biof of R3. The Public Record Office at Kew used to have it on their
>website, too, last year.

It's still there -- see

http://www.pro.gov.uk/virtualmuseum/maingalleries/kings/richard/default.htm

>If they ever let members of the public 'adaopt' historical documents
>at the PRO, like they do animals at London Zoo, like they were
>proposing at one time, that's the one I'd adopt! ;)

What a good idea for a Society initiative!

>I know nowt about graphology, but I find Richard's handwriting very
>interesting. For instance, it's bigger and bolder and 'less
>disciplined' than the secretaries' hand of John Kendall and Wm.
>Herbert, who both wrote and signed a bundle of official papers that
>are also filed at the PRO in Kew.
>

It's less disciplined, to be sure, but don't you think it's a lot more
regular (when he's not talking about ripping Buckingham's lungs out) than
that of his peers?

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

Thanks for the URL on that, Laura.
Oh, yes, I think Richard's handwriting is a
LOT more readable than some of his contemporaries.

Regards - Lorraine

I have what I think is a photo of the paper itself, in
one of my books, on which Richard, Buckingham and
Edward V were practicing signatures. No doubt who
thought he was king. Buckingham. (Grin). Richard's
signature was small, regular, and very neat.

Then I have Whatsisname with the psychoanalysis of
Richard's religious faith, SAYS that Richard's writing
was large and hard to read.

Is there anywhere we can see copies of the actual
writing?

I would also be interested in seeing what he wrote.
Where are these letters published?

Dora




--- "mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...>"
<mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> Hi Victoria
>
> First off, let me see I've noticed your posts re:
> Richard for some
> time, but haven't yet got round to saying it's nice
> to see a
> TudorTalk colleague on this and other lists. I hope
> you are enjoying
> your new interest in Richard, and hope in the future
> the man proves
> to be as worthwhile subject of research for you as I
> have found him
> to be.
>
> Richard has left us a number of personal handwritten
> notes. The
> earliest is a note he wrote to Sir John Say from
> Castle Rising in
> Norfolk when he was 16 or 17 asking for a loan of
> ý100 which he
> promised to repay by a certain date. Richard
> explains he's a little
> light on funds because his brother E4 has called him
> north
> unexpectedly (where there were rebellion, but he
> doesn't mention the
> reason, IIRC).
>
> There's also a surviving note he wrote to his mum
> when he was King
> that was written after her retainer Wm.
> Collingbourne was executed
> for treason (not for writing the 'The Cat, the Rat
> and Lovel Our Dog
> Rule All England Under the Hog' rhyme as is commonly
> supposed, BTW,
> but because in fact Collingbourne offered financial
> support to Henry
> Tudor).
>
> But perhaps the most famous surviving personal note
> is the postscript
> he adds to a note to John Russell, R3's Chancellor,
> when he finds out
> about the his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham's
> Rebellion, when he
> calls Buckingham 'the most untrue creature living'.
> The hurt, the
> shock, the surprise and the anger of finding out his
> closest ally has
> turned his coat is absolutely *palpable* when you
> see that letter.
>
> Richard was clearly hopping mad the day he wrote it
> - and utterly
> determined to bring Buckingham to book. That can be
> seen in every
> pen stroke! He has so much to say on the matter he
> uses every
> available space, even writing up the margins! The
> Postscript Letter
> is repro'd in a number of Books on Richard, if
> you're interested:
> the Tony Pollard book on 'The Princes in the Tower',
> and
> Hammond/Sutton's 'Road to Bosworth' being just two
> that spring to
> mind, though Michael Hicks may've also included it
> in his reprint
> biof of R3. The Public Record Office at Kew used to
> have it on their
> website, too, last year.
>
> If they ever let members of the public 'adaopt'
> historical documents
> at the PRO, like they do animals at London Zoo, like
> they were
> proposing at one time, that's the one I'd adopt! ;)
>
> I know nowt about graphology, but I find Richard's
> handwriting very
> interesting. For instance, it's bigger and bolder
> and 'less
> disciplined' than the secretaries' hand of John
> Kendall and Wm.
> Herbert, who both wrote and signed a bundle of
> official papers that
> are also filed at the PRO in Kew.
>
> Regards - Lorraine
>
> --- In ,
> hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> >
>
http://www.finelinegraphology.com/examplerichardIII.htm
> >
> > Analyzation of Richard's character through his
> handwriting. I
> didn't even
> > know that things written by his hand still
> existed!
> >
> > -Victoria
> > "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin
> of pretty ones."-
> Oscar
> > Wilde
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


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

Yipes! I hate to tell you - but it more supports
Jonathan whoseit's impression of the man! What could
have been going on in his mind? It is consistent with
his horoscope saying he could really communicate
irrationally in a rage.

Is there a transcription of the rest of the letter
anywhere? The part in small letters, the part that
takes up in huge letters, and the part that is
scrawled sideways along the other side of the page?

Dora




>
> It's still there -- see
>
>
http://www.pro.gov.uk/virtualmuseum/maingalleries/kings/richard/default.htm
>


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

At 11:27 AM 1/27/03 -0800, you wrote:
>Yipes! I hate to tell you - but it more supports
>Jonathan whoseit's impression of the man! What could
>have been going on in his mind? It is consistent with
>his horoscope saying he could really communicate
>irrationally in a rage.
>

Hammond and Sutton, _Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field_, Sutton
Publishing 1985, pp. 144-145.

As for your opinions of what it says about the writer: how do you expect a
man -- who has just discovered that a close associate whom he'd rewarded
generously was marching at the head of an army bent on killing him -- to
communicate? Under the circumstances, his desire to see a councillor, his
anger at Buckingham's betrayal, and his intention to meet the rebellion
effectively, seem entirely appropriate. I see nothing irrational about the
rage or the letter.

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

Hello All

Grumble...grumble...I have trouble posting to this Forum for some
reason...My first reply doesn't appear to haven't gotten through,
so here are my thoughts on this yet again:

< Then I have Whatsisname with the psychoanalysis of
> Richard's religious faith, SAYS that Richard's writing
> was large and hard to read. >

Dunno where he got that from! As you'd expect, in comparison to
his secretaries' small neat clerical hand, Richard's is often large.
But it's also DEAD EASY to read, IMO, and I have no formal training
in Paleography, graphology or any other kind of -ology, including
Jonathan Hughes's interpretationology!

<Is there anywhere we can see copies of the actual
writing? >

Didn't I already mention the PRO (Public Record Office).at Kew in
London?

Any examples of R3's handwriting of any importance not there will be
in the British Library/Museum (also in london), though minor examples
(signatures only, usually) are also to be found elsewhere in the
country, in local record offices, in Lambeth Palace (home of the
Archbishop of canterbury), various stately homes and private
collections.

Most books published in the UK since 1983 tend to have photographic
reproductions of his handwriting, including the 3 I mentioned in my
earlier post, by Sutton/Hammond, Hicks and Pollard. These are widely
available from online booksellers and are also available for
borrowing from the UK and US R3 Soc. Libraries.

Lorraine
>
> I would also be interested in seeing what he wrote.
> Where are these letters published?
>
> Dora

Me neither.

I'm with Laura, here, Dora.

I've actually seen Richard's postscript for myself. I've held the
letter in my own hands and know EXACTLY what I saw written there.

And I would have written EXACTLY what he did, HOW he did, if I'd've
been in his shoes on that day. It's a perfectly logical and lucid
letter of intent, in which he allows himself the luxury of calling
Buckingham a treacherous git.

Horoscopes are an arguably interesting diversion, but, like the
portraits of early discussion, have no real bearing on his kingship.
Personally I think we should put the projection to one side and
examine and research at what the man was having to actually deal
with/juggle/decide on a day-to-day basis in late 15thC England.

And I *definitely* think Jonathan Hughes needs to get out more...!

Lorraine

--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> At 11:27 AM 1/27/03 -0800, you wrote:
> >Yipes! I hate to tell you - but it more supports
> >Jonathan whoseit's impression of the man! What could
> >have been going on in his mind? It is consistent with
> >his horoscope saying he could really communicate
> >irrationally in a rage.
> >
>
> Hammond and Sutton, _Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field_,
Sutton
> Publishing 1985, pp. 144-145.
>
> As for your opinions of what it says about the writer: how do you
expect a
> man -- who has just discovered that a close associate whom he'd
rewarded
> generously was marching at the head of an army bent on killing him -
- to
> communicate? Under the circumstances, his desire to see a
councillor, his
> anger at Buckingham's betrayal, and his intention to meet the
rebellion
> effectively, seem entirely appropriate. I see nothing irrational
about the
> rage or the letter.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@p... (Philadelphia Area Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@r... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha

I honestly wouldn't get halfway through the letter and
then start writing twice as large.

Dora
.
> >
>
> Hammond and Sutton, _Richard III: The Road to
> Bosworth Field_, Sutton
> Publishing 1985, pp. 144-145.
>
> As for your opinions of what it says about the
> writer: how do you expect a
> man -- who has just discovered that a close
> associate whom he'd rewarded
> generously was marching at the head of an army bent
> on killing him -- to
> communicate? Under the circumstances, his desire to
> see a councillor, his
> anger at Buckingham's betrayal, and his intention to
> meet the rebellion
> effectively, seem entirely appropriate. I see
> nothing irrational about the
> rage or the letter.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area
> Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
>
>


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

At 07:17 PM 1/27/03 -0800, you wrote:
>I honestly wouldn't get halfway through the letter and
>then start writing twice as large.
>
>
Neither did Richard. His secretary wrote the letter. He wrote the
postscript. I didn't realize you didn't know that.

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

OK, I'll take a look around the university library,
they have an entire collection of books on him there.
The first edition of the one Laura just told me to
check is there.

I honestly don't know where Jonathan Hughes gets half
of waht he wrote. I always like to see the evidence
for myself. That particular piece did look like
something was wrong, but I'm not convinced Richard
always wrote in the same style, and I'd like to see
more of his handwriting.

I do have to say in answer to Laura that you or I
would have used every obscenity in the book, if we
were writing to a friend about an event like that. My
handwriting sometimes gets uneven when I am upset. It
would not have dramatically changed in size. I would
certainly bold or put in all caps a few words here and
there, so people would KNOW I was shouting. That's,
<b> KNOW!!! </b> But the way that writing changed goes
way beyond a fit of apoplexy - and it clearly was not
something about what it took to fit as much as he kept
thinking of to say on the paper.

It is not hard to see how Hastings got summarily
executed.

It is too consistent with repeatedly calling Henry
Tudor and all of his people 'orrible adultres'.

Dora



--- "mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...>"
<mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> Hello All
>
> Grumble...grumble...I have trouble posting to this
> Forum for some
> reason...My first reply doesn't appear to haven't
> gotten through,
> so here are my thoughts on this yet again:
>
> < Then I have Whatsisname with the psychoanalysis of
> > Richard's religious faith, SAYS that Richard's
> writing
> > was large and hard to read. >
>
> Dunno where he got that from! As you'd expect, in
> comparison to
> his secretaries' small neat clerical hand, Richard's
> is often large.
> But it's also DEAD EASY to read, IMO, and I have no
> formal training
> in Paleography, graphology or any other kind of
> -ology, including
> Jonathan Hughes's interpretationology!
>
> <Is there anywhere we can see copies of the actual
> writing? >
>
> Didn't I already mention the PRO (Public Record
> Office).at Kew in
> London?
>
> Any examples of R3's handwriting of any importance
> not there will be
> in the British Library/Museum (also in london),
> though minor examples
> (signatures only, usually) are also to be found
> elsewhere in the
> country, in local record offices, in Lambeth Palace
> (home of the
> Archbishop of canterbury), various stately homes and
> private
> collections.
>
> Most books published in the UK since 1983 tend to
> have photographic
> reproductions of his handwriting, including the 3 I
> mentioned in my
> earlier post, by Sutton/Hammond, Hicks and Pollard.
> These are widely
> available from online booksellers and are also
> available for
> borrowing from the UK and US R3 Soc. Libraries.
>
> Lorraine
> >
> > I would also be interested in seeing what he
> wrote.
> > Where are these letters published?
> >
> > Dora
>
>
>


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

At 07:32 PM 1/27/03 -0800, you wrote:

>
>I do have to say in answer to Laura that you or I
>would have used every obscenity in the book, if we
>were writing to a friend about an event like that. My
>handwriting sometimes gets uneven when I am upset. It
>would not have dramatically changed in size. I would
>certainly bold or put in all caps a few words here and
>there, so people would KNOW I was shouting. That's,
><b> KNOW!!! </b> But the way that writing changed goes
>way beyond a fit of apoplexy - and it clearly was not
>something about what it took to fit as much as he kept
>thinking of to say on the paper.
>

Most of Richard's letters as king were dictated to and/or composed by a
secretary. The letter to Chancellor Russell differs only in that Richard
not only signed this one but added a personal postscript in his own hand.
There's no arguing that it was written under great emotion. I'd say that
it's probably a lot messier than other samples of his writing that we have.

One can't argue that he's nutso because the writing changes, though. It
looks as though it were written by two completely different people because
it was.

(In Richard's position I'd have been vowing to have Buckingham's guts for
garters.)


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

Hughes exactly thought Richard's handwriting was too
large and undisciplined. Maybe it depends on what
specimen of it one looks at.

Now that I see what started this, I think this web
site goes too far. I think one can often get gross
insights about character from handwriting, but I've
never thought you could microanalyze a person's
personality with it.

The trouble is Richard was rather deliberately such a
mystery we use any clues we can find.

I am looking for the posting that contained the link
to Richard's letter about Buckingham. I found several
samples of his handwriting in one of the books I just
got at Half Price Books, and I want to compare it.

It wouldn't surprise me if his handwriting was
shakier, though. It's the sudden dramatic change in
size that strikes me.

Both of the samples I am looking at were probably
written in his best handwriting. His handwriting
ranges from regular, detailed, quite good Gothicish
sort of script, to too regular and too neat. I'm
looking at the letter he wrote to his nephew asking
for money, and that page of practice signatures. On
the letter to his nephew, after his signature he
includes a postscript, larger and bolder than the text
of his letter.

Dora


--- "mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...>"
<mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> Hi Victoria
>
> First off, let me see I've noticed your posts re:
> Richard for some
> time, but haven't yet got round to saying it's nice
> to see a
> TudorTalk colleague on this and other lists. I hope
> you are enjoying
> your new interest in Richard, and hope in the future
> the man proves
> to be as worthwhile subject of research for you as I
> have found him
> to be.
>
> Richard has left us a number of personal handwritten
> notes. The
> earliest is a note he wrote to Sir John Say from
> Castle Rising in
> Norfolk when he was 16 or 17 asking for a loan of
> ý100 which he
> promised to repay by a certain date. Richard
> explains he's a little
> light on funds because his brother E4 has called him
> north
> unexpectedly (where there were rebellion, but he
> doesn't mention the
> reason, IIRC).
>
> There's also a surviving note he wrote to his mum
> when he was King
> that was written after her retainer Wm.
> Collingbourne was executed
> for treason (not for writing the 'The Cat, the Rat
> and Lovel Our Dog
> Rule All England Under the Hog' rhyme as is commonly
> supposed, BTW,
> but because in fact Collingbourne offered financial
> support to Henry
> Tudor).
>
> But perhaps the most famous surviving personal note
> is the postscript
> he adds to a note to John Russell, R3's Chancellor,
> when he finds out
> about the his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham's
> Rebellion, when he
> calls Buckingham 'the most untrue creature living'.
> The hurt, the
> shock, the surprise and the anger of finding out his
> closest ally has
> turned his coat is absolutely *palpable* when you
> see that letter.
>
> Richard was clearly hopping mad the day he wrote it
> - and utterly
> determined to bring Buckingham to book. That can be
> seen in every
> pen stroke! He has so much to say on the matter he
> uses every
> available space, even writing up the margins! The
> Postscript Letter
> is repro'd in a number of Books on Richard, if
> you're interested:
> the Tony Pollard book on 'The Princes in the Tower',
> and
> Hammond/Sutton's 'Road to Bosworth' being just two
> that spring to
> mind, though Michael Hicks may've also included it
> in his reprint
> biof of R3. The Public Record Office at Kew used to
> have it on their
> website, too, last year.
>
> If they ever let members of the public 'adaopt'
> historical documents
> at the PRO, like they do animals at London Zoo, like
> they were
> proposing at one time, that's the one I'd adopt! ;)
>
> I know nowt about graphology, but I find Richard's
> handwriting very
> interesting. For instance, it's bigger and bolder
> and 'less
> disciplined' than the secretaries' hand of John
> Kendall and Wm.
> Herbert, who both wrote and signed a bundle of
> official papers that
> are also filed at the PRO in Kew.
>
> Regards - Lorraine
>
> --- In ,
> hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> >
>
http://www.finelinegraphology.com/examplerichardIII.htm
> >
> > Analyzation of Richard's character through his
> handwriting. I
> didn't even
> > know that things written by his hand still
> existed!
> >
> > -Victoria
> > "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the ruin
> of pretty ones."-
> Oscar
> > Wilde
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


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

But he didn't, Dora! The top bit (the smaller hand)
is written by a SECRETARY - Richard adds a sort of
POSTSCRIPT - the bit that goes up the margins after
he's covered the rest of the page. The first smaller
bit of it would have been intended as merely a formal
note to his Chancellor. It's the addition that makes
it so personal, and so interesting. That was the
whole point of my mentioning it, in fact.

Lorraine

--- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote: > I
honestly wouldn't get halfway through the letter
> and
> then start writing twice as large.
>
> Dora
> .
> > >
> >
> > Hammond and Sutton, _Richard III: The Road to
> > Bosworth Field_, Sutton
> > Publishing 1985, pp. 144-145.
> >
> > As for your opinions of what it says about the
> > writer: how do you expect a
> > man -- who has just discovered that a close
> > associate whom he'd rewarded
> > generously was marching at the head of an army
> bent
> > on killing him -- to
> > communicate? Under the circumstances, his desire
> to
> > see a councillor, his
> > anger at Buckingham's betrayal, and his intention
> to
> > meet the rebellion
> > effectively, seem entirely appropriate. I see
> > nothing irrational about the
> > rage or the letter.
> >
> > --
> > Laura Blanchard
> > lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area
> > Consortium of Special
> > Collections Libraries
> > lblanchard@... (all other mail)
> > Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> > http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

His writing is actually pretty consistent throughout
his life, Dora - maybe he just had an angry sorta
life, but it's essentially the same handwriting style
he has from when he was a teenager writing to Sir John
Say (in the earliest surviving note we have that I
described earlier - the IOU for £100) up to the later
examples previously discussed. The Buckingham
Postscript perhaps note has 'faster' strokes, and it's
clear he's raced across the page as fast as the quill
could take it, but it's not the slightest bit
consistent with him calling Tudor and his adherents
'orrible adulterers', because Richard never wrote that
letter and we simply don't know if he dictated it any
more than we know he dictated the whole of Titulus
Regius (which is unlikely)!

Besides, whatever he calls them, he was right to do
so, he was using language expected at the time,
particularly when these men were planning treason,
planning to take his crown and kill him (which they
did do eventually). And I understand Dorset, who was
supporting Tudor, at one point, was noted by another
chronicler as someone who was sleeping around and so
therefore *could* be called an 'adulterer', according
to the mores of time.

Let's not forget that we are reading about 15thC folk
and THEIR notions of what was moral or not - not our
own - here.

My personal morality probably differs from that of
everyone on this list and I'm sorry if this sounds a
tad sharp, but Richard has been getting a lot of flak
lately and has even been diagnosed with illnesses and
a chaotic pychological profile that simply about him
when taken in context of his times. If we look at the
evidence, he was more consistent, and probably saner,
than half of us on this list, myself included.

Lorraine

--- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote: > OK,
I'll take a look around the university library,
> they have an entire collection of books on him
> there.
> The first edition of the one Laura just told me to
> check is there.
>
> I honestly don't know where Jonathan Hughes gets
> half
> of waht he wrote. I always like to see the evidence
> for myself. That particular piece did look like
> something was wrong, but I'm not convinced Richard
> always wrote in the same style, and I'd like to see
> more of his handwriting.
>
> I do have to say in answer to Laura that you or I
> would have used every obscenity in the book, if we
> were writing to a friend about an event like that.
> My
> handwriting sometimes gets uneven when I am upset.
> It
> would not have dramatically changed in size. I
> would
> certainly bold or put in all caps a few words here
> and
> there, so people would KNOW I was shouting. That's,
> <b> KNOW!!! </b> But the way that writing changed
> goes
> way beyond a fit of apoplexy - and it clearly was
> not
> something about what it took to fit as much as he
> kept
> thinking of to say on the paper.
>
> It is not hard to see how Hastings got summarily
> executed.
>
> It is too consistent with repeatedly calling Henry
> Tudor and all of his people 'orrible adultres'.
>
> Dora
>
>
>
> --- "mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...>"
> <mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> > Hello All
> >
> > Grumble...grumble...I have trouble posting to this
> > Forum for some
> > reason...My first reply doesn't appear to haven't
> > gotten through,
> > so here are my thoughts on this yet again:
> >
> > < Then I have Whatsisname with the psychoanalysis
> of
> > > Richard's religious faith, SAYS that Richard's
> > writing
> > > was large and hard to read. >
> >
> > Dunno where he got that from! As you'd expect, in
> > comparison to
> > his secretaries' small neat clerical hand,
> Richard's
> > is often large.
> > But it's also DEAD EASY to read, IMO, and I have
> no
> > formal training
> > in Paleography, graphology or any other kind of
> > -ology, including
> > Jonathan Hughes's interpretationology!
> >
> > <Is there anywhere we can see copies of the actual
> > writing? >
> >
> > Didn't I already mention the PRO (Public Record
> > Office).at Kew in
> > London?
> >
> > Any examples of R3's handwriting of any importance
> > not there will be
> > in the British Library/Museum (also in london),
> > though minor examples
> > (signatures only, usually) are also to be found
> > elsewhere in the
> > country, in local record offices, in Lambeth
> Palace
> > (home of the
> > Archbishop of canterbury), various stately homes
> and
> > private
> > collections.
> >
> > Most books published in the UK since 1983 tend to
> > have photographic
> > reproductions of his handwriting, including the 3
> I
> > mentioned in my
> > earlier post, by Sutton/Hammond, Hicks and
> Pollard.
> > These are widely
> > available from online booksellers and are also
> > available for
> > borrowing from the UK and US R3 Soc. Libraries.
> >
> > Lorraine
> > >
> > > I would also be interested in seeing what he
> > wrote.
> > > Where are these letters published?
> > >
> > > Dora
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

A small correction:

He didn't write to his nephew asking for money, Dora.
He wrote to Sir John Say, a retainer of his brother,
Edward IV. It's either in Pollard, or the
Hammond/Sutton book. I'm in a computer lab away from
my own library at present.

I've seen the original letter. It fits the page. How
can that be 'too' large? It's undisciplined compared
to the trained hands of his secretaries, but if you
wasnt downright illegible, try some of his
contemporaries for a better basis for comparison,
including his sister Margaret of Burgundy's attempts
in Christine Weightman's excellent biography of the
woman. I do think that comparisons will give you a
better idea than Hughes' rather one-sided
pronouncements on stuff it's increasingly sounding
like he knows nowt about.

Oh, and this Englishwoman would pronounce 'Gloucester'
as 'Gloster', as in the rhyme 'Dr Foster Went to
Gloucester'. That's Glosster, as in gloss paint, BTW.

Lorraine

--- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote: >
Hughes exactly thought Richard's handwriting was too
> large and undisciplined. Maybe it depends on what
> specimen of it one looks at.
>
> Now that I see what started this, I think this web
> site goes too far. I think one can often get gross
> insights about character from handwriting, but I've
> never thought you could microanalyze a person's
> personality with it.
>
> The trouble is Richard was rather deliberately such
> a
> mystery we use any clues we can find.
>
> I am looking for the posting that contained the link
> to Richard's letter about Buckingham. I found
> several
> samples of his handwriting in one of the books I
> just
> got at Half Price Books, and I want to compare it.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if his handwriting was
> shakier, though. It's the sudden dramatic change in
> size that strikes me.
>
> Both of the samples I am looking at were probably
> written in his best handwriting. His handwriting
> ranges from regular, detailed, quite good Gothicish
> sort of script, to too regular and too neat. I'm
> looking at the letter he wrote to his nephew asking
> for money, and that page of practice signatures. On
> the letter to his nephew, after his signature he
> includes a postscript, larger and bolder than the
> text
> of his letter.
>
> Dora
>
>
> --- "mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...>"
> <mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> > Hi Victoria
> >
> > First off, let me see I've noticed your posts re:
> > Richard for some
> > time, but haven't yet got round to saying it's
> nice
> > to see a
> > TudorTalk colleague on this and other lists. I
> hope
> > you are enjoying
> > your new interest in Richard, and hope in the
> future
> > the man proves
> > to be as worthwhile subject of research for you as
> I
> > have found him
> > to be.
> >
> > Richard has left us a number of personal
> handwritten
> > notes. The
> > earliest is a note he wrote to Sir John Say from
> > Castle Rising in
> > Norfolk when he was 16 or 17 asking for a loan of
> > £100 which he
> > promised to repay by a certain date. Richard
> > explains he's a little
> > light on funds because his brother E4 has called
> him
> > north
> > unexpectedly (where there were rebellion, but he
> > doesn't mention the
> > reason, IIRC).
> >
> > There's also a surviving note he wrote to his mum
> > when he was King
> > that was written after her retainer Wm.
> > Collingbourne was executed
> > for treason (not for writing the 'The Cat, the Rat
> > and Lovel Our Dog
> > Rule All England Under the Hog' rhyme as is
> commonly
> > supposed, BTW,
> > but because in fact Collingbourne offered
> financial
> > support to Henry
> > Tudor).
> >
> > But perhaps the most famous surviving personal
> note
> > is the postscript
> > he adds to a note to John Russell, R3's
> Chancellor,
> > when he finds out
> > about the his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham's
> > Rebellion, when he
> > calls Buckingham 'the most untrue creature
> living'.
> > The hurt, the
> > shock, the surprise and the anger of finding out
> his
> > closest ally has
> > turned his coat is absolutely *palpable* when you
> > see that letter.
> >
> > Richard was clearly hopping mad the day he wrote
> it
> > - and utterly
> > determined to bring Buckingham to book. That can
> be
> > seen in every
> > pen stroke! He has so much to say on the matter
> he
> > uses every
> > available space, even writing up the margins! The
> > Postscript Letter
> > is repro'd in a number of Books on Richard, if
> > you're interested:
> > the Tony Pollard book on 'The Princes in the
> Tower',
> > and
> > Hammond/Sutton's 'Road to Bosworth' being just two
> > that spring to
> > mind, though Michael Hicks may've also included it
> > in his reprint
> > biof of R3. The Public Record Office at Kew used
> to
> > have it on their
> > website, too, last year.
> >
> > If they ever let members of the public 'adaopt'
> > historical documents
> > at the PRO, like they do animals at London Zoo,
> like
> > they were
> > proposing at one time, that's the one I'd adopt!
> ;)
> >
> > I know nowt about graphology, but I find Richard's
> > handwriting very
> > interesting. For instance, it's bigger and bolder
> > and 'less
> > disciplined' than the secretaries' hand of John
> > Kendall and Wm.
> > Herbert, who both wrote and signed a bundle of
> > official papers that
> > are also filed at the PRO in Kew.
> >
> > Regards - Lorraine
> >
> > --- In ,
> > hockeygirl1016@a...
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
>
http://www.finelinegraphology.com/examplerichardIII.htm
> > >
> > > Analyzation of Richard's character through his
> > handwriting. I
> > didn't even
> > > know that things written by his hand still
> > existed!
> > >
> > > -Victoria
> > > "Crying is the refuge of plain women, but the
> ruin
> > of pretty ones."-
> > Oscar
> > > Wilde
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

And, a small correction to myself - typing too fast
and not checking for errors <g>:

Firstly, asI'm sure you all realised, I meant to
say'if you want downright illegible', not the wasnt'
which fell onto the page, and secondly in an earlier
note I meant to say in essence that a chaotic
pychological profile simply doesn't true of Richard if
you look at all the evidence in context.

My third point is yet again, IIRC, the request for a
loan is a *personal addition* by Richard, Dora.

If you want to start analysing 15thC letters, please
don't assume that a whole letter is always written by
the same hand. It's often not. Even the Stallworthe
letter was written in 2 different hands, and that
bloke was comparatively minor compared to Richard (the
fact that Stallworthe was ill may account for the
other handwriting in this example). For a further
example of this practice, there's surviving examples
from Francis Lovel and Jack Howard where they've added
their own postscripts to the main body of the letter,
after they've signed it. These and other examples of
what I mean have also been reproduced in
Richard-related works, I think.

There's a nice letter complaining about their
treatment away from home and thanking their Dad for
some bonnets he sent them written by Rutland and E4
(when still the young Earl of March) to Richard Duke
of York (R3's pfather also), which might be an
exception, here. I can't remember, now, but I think
the entire thing was written by one or other of the
boys, not just their signatures.

The E5, Buckingham and Richard samples is just a note,
with signatures and mottos, IIRC, which wouldn't be
properly representative of regular, day-to-day,
handwriting anyway (IMHO).

Lorraine

Lorraine Pickering <mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> A small correction:
>
> He didn't write to his nephew asking for money,
> Dora.
> He wrote to Sir John Say, a retainer of his brother,
> Edward IV. It's either in Pollard, or the
> Hammond/Sutton book. I'm in a computer lab away
> from
> my own library at present.
>
> I've seen the original letter. It fits the page.
> How
> can that be 'too' large? It's undisciplined
> compared
> to the trained hands of his secretaries, but if you
> wasnt downright illegible, try some of his
> contemporaries for a better basis for comparison,
> including his sister Margaret of Burgundy's attempts
> in Christine Weightman's excellent biography of the
> woman. I do think that comparisons will give you a
> better idea than Hughes' rather one-sided
> pronouncements on stuff it's increasingly sounding
> like he knows nowt about.
>
> Oh, and this Englishwoman would pronounce
> 'Gloucester'
> as 'Gloster', as in the rhyme 'Dr Foster Went to
> Gloucester'. That's Glosster, as in gloss paint,
> BTW.
>
> Lorraine
>
> --- Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote: >
> Hughes exactly thought Richard's handwriting was too
> > large and undisciplined. Maybe it depends on what
> > specimen of it one looks at.
> >
> > Now that I see what started this, I think this web
> > site goes too far. I think one can often get
> gross
> > insights about character from handwriting, but
> I've
> > never thought you could microanalyze a person's
> > personality with it.
> >
> > The trouble is Richard was rather deliberately
> such
> > a
> > mystery we use any clues we can find.
> >
> > I am looking for the posting that contained the
> link
> > to Richard's letter about Buckingham. I found
> > several
> > samples of his handwriting in one of the books I
> > just
> > got at Half Price Books, and I want to compare it.
>
> >
> > It wouldn't surprise me if his handwriting was
> > shakier, though. It's the sudden dramatic change
> in
> > size that strikes me.
> >
> > Both of the samples I am looking at were probably
> > written in his best handwriting. His handwriting
> > ranges from regular, detailed, quite good
> Gothicish
> > sort of script, to too regular and too neat. I'm
> > looking at the letter he wrote to his nephew
> asking
> > for money, and that page of practice signatures.
> On
> > the letter to his nephew, after his signature he
> > includes a postscript, larger and bolder than the
> > text
> > of his letter.
> >
> > Dora
> >
> >
> > --- "mrslpickering <mrslpickering@...>"
> > <mrslpickering@...> wrote:
> > > Hi Victoria
> > >
> > > First off, let me see I've noticed your posts
> re:
> > > Richard for some
> > > time, but haven't yet got round to saying it's
> > nice
> > > to see a
> > > TudorTalk colleague on this and other lists. I
> > hope
> > > you are enjoying
> > > your new interest in Richard, and hope in the
> > future
> > > the man proves
> > > to be as worthwhile subject of research for you
> as
> > I
> > > have found him
> > > to be.
> > >
> > > Richard has left us a number of personal
> > handwritten
> > > notes. The
> > > earliest is a note he wrote to Sir John Say from
> > > Castle Rising in
> > > Norfolk when he was 16 or 17 asking for a loan
> of
> > > £100 which he
> > > promised to repay by a certain date. Richard
> > > explains he's a little
> > > light on funds because his brother E4 has called
> > him
> > > north
> > > unexpectedly (where there were rebellion, but he
> > > doesn't mention the
> > > reason, IIRC).
> > >
> > > There's also a surviving note he wrote to his
> mum
> > > when he was King
> > > that was written after her retainer Wm.
> > > Collingbourne was executed
> > > for treason (not for writing the 'The Cat, the
> Rat
> > > and Lovel Our Dog
> > > Rule All England Under the Hog' rhyme as is
> > commonly
> > > supposed, BTW,
> > > but because in fact Collingbourne offered
> > financial
> > > support to Henry
> > > Tudor).
> > >
> > > But perhaps the most famous surviving personal
> > note
> > > is the postscript
> > > he adds to a note to John Russell, R3's
> > Chancellor,
> > > when he finds out
> > > about the his cousin, the Duke of Buckingham's
> > > Rebellion, when he
> > > calls Buckingham 'the most untrue creature
> > living'.
> > > The hurt, the
> > > shock, the surprise and the anger of finding out
> > his
> > > closest ally has
> > > turned his coat is absolutely *palpable* when
> you
> > > see that letter.
> > >
> > > Richard was clearly hopping mad the day he wrote
> > it
> > > - and utterly
> > > determined to bring Buckingham to book. That
> can
> > be
> > > seen in every
> > > pen stroke! He has so much to say on the matter
> > he
> > > uses every
> > > available space, even writing up the margins!
> The
> > > Postscript Letter
> > > is repro'd in a number of Books on Richard, if
> > > you're interested:
> > > the Tony Pollard book on 'The Princes in the
> > Tower',
> > > and
> > > Hammond/Sutton's 'Road to Bosworth' being just
> two
> > > that spring to
> > > mind, though Michael Hicks may've also included
> it
> > > in his reprint
> > > biof of R3. The Public Record Office at Kew
> used
> > to
> > > have it on their
> > > website, too, last year.
> > >
> > > If they ever let members of the public 'adaopt'
> > > historical documents
> > > at the PRO, like they do animals at London Zoo,
> > like
> > > they were
> > > proposing at one time, that's the one I'd adopt!
> > ;)
> > >
> > > I know nowt about graphology, but I find
> Richard's
> > > handwriting very
> > > interesting. For instance, it's bigger and
> bolder
> > > and 'less
> > > disciplined' than the secretaries' hand of John
> > > Kendall and Wm.
> > > Herbert, who both wrote and signed a bundle of
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

No, I didn't know that. It sure makes a difference!
If he didn't write the first part of it, he wouldn't
have to be psycho for the latter part of it to
suddenly be much bigger.

I thought the letter was to a personal friend, though.

Dora

--- Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
> At 07:17 PM 1/27/03 -0800, you wrote:
> >I honestly wouldn't get halfway through the letter
> and
> >then start writing twice as large.
> >
> >
> Neither did Richard. His secretary wrote the letter.
> He wrote the
> postscript. I didn't realize you didn't know that.
>
> --
> Laura Blanchard
> lblancha@... (Philadelphia Area
> Consortium of Special
> Collections Libraries
> lblanchard@... (all other mail)
> Home office: 215-985-1445 voice, -1446 fax
> http://pobox.upenn.edu/~lblancha
>
>


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

At 06:05 AM 1/30/03 -0800, you wrote:
>No, I didn't know that. It sure makes a difference!
>If he didn't write the first part of it, he wouldn't
>have to be psycho for the latter part of it to
>suddenly be much bigger.
>
>I thought the letter was to a personal friend, though.
>

well, they may or may not have been friends. But he was the chancellor of
England.

Given the situation -- rebellion brewing, need to raise troops, need to
contact a whole lot of folks very quickly -- I would guess that Richard had
a couple of secretaries there and was saying "write so and so and tell him
x; write so and so and tell him Y" just as a busy executive would say to
his administrative assistant today. The underling would draft letters in
standard bureaucratese.

When I was doing PR and fundraising, I would write copious quantities of
letters, editorials, etc., that then appeared over someone else's signature
or under someone else's byline. It wasn't unusual, though, for one of my
clients to pull a couple of form letters out of the pile and add a personal
p.s. I imagine that only the technology has changed.




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