A few questions . . .

A few questions . . .

2012-09-18 13:13:23
Johanne Tournier
Hi, All -

I've been interested, not to say passionate about, King Richard III ever
since my professor of English History back in the late 60's required us to
read Josephine Tey's *The Daughter of Time* as a text for our course. Being
raised in the US, I didn't know anything about "the little princes in the
tower" at the time and had only seen bits and pieces of Shakespeare's play.
But I was gripped by Tey's historical detective sleuthing and have been
sympathetic to Richard's cause ever since. Reading books like Kendall's
cemented my sympathies.



So I have re-joined this Forum, having heard the recent exciting news of the
probable discovery of Richard's remains. I have a few questions. I am sure
many of them have been discussed here before this; if so, feel free to point
me in the direction of where I can find the answers.



I have read in a couple of the articles that the excavation in Leicester has
been funded by the Richard III Society. Is that true?



I recall the story of Richard's body being thrown into the Soar. I think
that was the way Kendall described it, so I thought it was pretty much
certain. I seem to recall there were some other stories that circulated as
to what had happened to Richard's remains. When I was a member of this Forum
a few years ago, I recall a discussion of Richard being buried in
Greyfriars. Now I see some external evidence, like a plaque nearby that says
it is the site of his burial. I believe I read in one article that a
monument to Richard was actually erected on the spot by Henry. I find this
fascinating and incredible. Would this possibly being an effort to assuage
his guilt for being a regicide? Or to placate Richard's angry spirit?



The recent articles indicated that the archeologists determined the probable
site of Greyfriars by studying a series of historic maps of the area over
centuries, indicating what probably lay under the car park. Are those maps
available online anywhere? Or in any books?



Looking at Leicester from Google Earth, how would I identify the Greyfriars
site? One person who was commenting online said that "King Richard's Road"
is pointing right at the spot. This is another clue that I find fascinating.
I didn't realize there was a road there called "King Richard's Road" and
that does suggest to me that there was a possibly substantial faction in the
area who remained loyal to Richard's memory.



Are there any pictures available of the discovery and uncovering of the
skeleton?



I understand the only other body nearby was a disarticulated skeleton of a
female. Does anyone have any idea who she might be and why her body would
have been disarticulated?



How did they determine that the man suffered from severe scoliosis? I read
in a couple places that it wouldn't have made him a "hunchback," though his
right shoulder would have been considerably higher than the left. As I
recall, some of the historic accounts of Richard are consistent with that. I
also recall reading that, trained for warfare, Richard's right side in any
case probably would have been more developed than his left side. So I
suppose the two things may have combined to make Richard's right shoulder
considerably more prominent than his left one. It is only natural that his
enemies would have seized on his most distinguishing physical feature as a
sign of malignity, which was commonly believed in that day anyway.



Is there a record of the excavations available online? Or will they be made
available?



I am thrilled and excited by this most amazing discovery. I certainly never
expected to see this day. I am only sorry that one of my best friends, Linda
Miller, a very talented artist who suffered from severe scoliosis and was
fascinated by Richard, has not survived to witness this event.



I am grateful to those responsible for this timely effort! Thank you all!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-18 20:52:39
Welcome back and hope Annette Carson can answer your questions as a very knowlegeable and erudite person on Richard and the author of an excellent and informative book. The Maligned King. Hope this helps and Annette cananswer your questions. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerryý smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Sender:
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:11:49
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: A few questions . . .

Hi, All -

I've been interested, not to say passionate about, King Richard III ever
since my professor of English History back in the late 60's required us to
read Josephine Tey's *The Daughter of Time* as a text for our course. Being
raised in the US, I didn't know anything about "the little princes in the
tower" at the time and had only seen bits and pieces of Shakespeare's play.
But I was gripped by Tey's historical detective sleuthing and have been
sympathetic to Richard's cause ever since. Reading books like Kendall's
cemented my sympathies.



So I have re-joined this Forum, having heard the recent exciting news of the
probable discovery of Richard's remains. I have a few questions. I am sure
many of them have been discussed here before this; if so, feel free to point
me in the direction of where I can find the answers.



I have read in a couple of the articles that the excavation in Leicester has
been funded by the Richard III Society. Is that true?



I recall the story of Richard's body being thrown into the Soar. I think
that was the way Kendall described it, so I thought it was pretty much
certain. I seem to recall there were some other stories that circulated as
to what had happened to Richard's remains. When I was a member of this Forum
a few years ago, I recall a discussion of Richard being buried in
Greyfriars. Now I see some external evidence, like a plaque nearby that says
it is the site of his burial. I believe I read in one article that a
monument to Richard was actually erected on the spot by Henry. I find this
fascinating and incredible. Would this possibly being an effort to assuage
his guilt for being a regicide? Or to placate Richard's angry spirit?



The recent articles indicated that the archeologists determined the probable
site of Greyfriars by studying a series of historic maps of the area over
centuries, indicating what probably lay under the car park. Are those maps
available online anywhere? Or in any books?



Looking at Leicester from Google Earth, how would I identify the Greyfriars
site? One person who was commenting online said that "King Richard's Road"
is pointing right at the spot. This is another clue that I find fascinating.
I didn't realize there was a road there called "King Richard's Road" and
that does suggest to me that there was a possibly substantial faction in the
area who remained loyal to Richard's memory.



Are there any pictures available of the discovery and uncovering of the
skeleton?



I understand the only other body nearby was a disarticulated skeleton of a
female. Does anyone have any idea who she might be and why her body would
have been disarticulated?



How did they determine that the man suffered from severe scoliosis? I read
in a couple places that it wouldn't have made him a "hunchback," though his
right shoulder would have been considerably higher than the left. As I
recall, some of the historic accounts of Richard are consistent with that. I
also recall reading that, trained for warfare, Richard's right side in any
case probably would have been more developed than his left side. So I
suppose the two things may have combined to make Richard's right shoulder
considerably more prominent than his left one. It is only natural that his
enemies would have seized on his most distinguishing physical feature as a
sign of malignity, which was commonly believed in that day anyway.



Is there a record of the excavations available online? Or will they be made
available?



I am thrilled and excited by this most amazing discovery. I certainly never
expected to see this day. I am only sorry that one of my best friends, Linda
Miller, a very talented artist who suffered from severe scoliosis and was
fascinated by Richard, has not survived to witness this event.



I am grateful to those responsible for this timely effort! Thank you all!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~










Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-18 22:20:46
Johanne Tournier
Hi, Coral!

Thanks for your welcome! I eagerly await the nitty-gritty details from
Annette! ( I would have already bought her book, but it doesn't seem to be
available for the kindle. :-()

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
c.nelson1@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .

Welcome back and hope Annette Carson can answer your questions as a very
knowlegeable and erudite person on Richard and the author of an excellent
and informative book. The Maligned King. Hope this helps and Annette
cananswer your questions. Coral

Sent from my BlackBerryR smartphone

Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-19 11:56:45
Annette Carson
Oh, dear, and I was hoping someone else could step in to acquaint Johanne
with events of the recent past, as my last conversation with my publisher
has set me to resuming several tasks I had to drop in July when Leicester
took over.

I think the best place to start is by looking at news on the net - I noted
this link as a full report of the university's announcement made on 12
September of the results of the dig and the discovery of someone who may be
Richard III:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/richard-iii-leicester-dig-curved-spine-could-be-clue-in-identifying-remains-8130443.html

Other forum members may know of better or more recent reports. There is also
the Richard III page on the website of the University of Leicester: I think
it's http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii

You ask whether it's true that the project received funding from the Richard
III Society, from which I assume you're not a member (please consider
joining if you care about Richard, they struggle with meagre funding that
comes almost solely from member subscriptions). Your membership will also
keep you updated on developments on this project. Yes, the Society gave what
they could afford, and more importantly, when the project hit a shortfall
two months ago a concerted effort was made by individual Ricardians, many of
them on this forum, which supplied the missing funds and enabled the dig to
go ahead. Donations also came from non-members and members of other
Ricardian organisations.

It is true that legends have confidently described the throwing into the
Soar, but this was debunked many decades ago - once again, this will be
known to Society members via articles in the publications they receive. It
is a recorded fact that Henry VII commissioned a commemorative tomb to be
erected in the Greyfriars in the 1490s - I could hazard a guess as to the
motivation, but it wouldn't be any more accurate than anyone else's guess
....

I have seen some of the maps that were used, but I really can't tell you
what archives they are in. Probably in Leicester, I would imagine. I have a
very nice souvenir guide entitled "Castle Park" which reproduces maps,
street plans and images of Leicester from Norman times onwards, in which are
reproduced some of the maps that were used in regression analysis. Published
by Leicestershire County Council, can't find a date, ISBN 0850223814.

Leicester has many roads named after Richard III, and its inhabitants don't
seem to harbour an attitude of cynicism about him, which is refreshing. If
you look for Leicester Cathedral (St Martin's) you will see a west-east road
running along the southern perimeter of its grounds. I forget its name - it
could be St Martin's Street. Immediately south of this road are (working
from west to east) a small car park and a larger car park, separated by a
narrow little street named New Street. Both car parks are entered from New
Street. The one to the east of New Street is the one where the dig started
and where Richard (if it is Richard) was found. Enclosing this car park to
the north and south are council offices. On the east side is a long brick
wall separating it from the car park of a disused school. This school car
park is where the third trench was excavated, the one which revealed the
tiles and tracery which belong to the Greyfriars church. Press photos have
shown one of our forum members working there on the dig, in case she would
like to identify herself ;-).

I personally have no information about the disarticulated female remains,
sorry.

The scoliosis (lateral curve) is visible with the naked eye and would have
caused one shoulder (the right) to have been higher than the other. The
media announcement describes it as 'severe scoliosis' and IIRC it says that
the right shoulder would have been 'visibly higher' (not 'considerably
higher'). It was not kyphosis which is a forward-backward curve which leads
its sufferers to be called 'hunchbacked' (or is there a kinder word for it
nowadays?). I am not sure about the underlying reasoning behind the use of
either of these two adjectives, unless to try to emphasize the likelihood of
identification with Richard. Certainly one of those who saw the spine
informed me that the misalignment of the shoulders would be barely visible,
especially when clothed. Let's see what the lab results eventually say.

Apologies that I don't have time to write more, but if you Google the
subject you'll find lots of information in the media. By the way, for the
information of other members, I've just read two very sensible press
articles setting the matter straight about the destruction of Richard's
reputation - by Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in The Daily
Telegraph, both 14 September.

As for "Maligned King" being available as an eBook, I declined the offer
when I realized that, if done, the publisher's policy would be to wind down
publication in print. No way!
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: <c.nelson1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .


Welcome back and hope Annette Carson can answer your questions as a very
knowlegeable and erudite person on Richard and the author of an excellent
and informative book. The Maligned King. Hope this helps and Annette
cananswer your questions. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Sender:
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:11:49
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: A few questions . . .

Hi, All -

I've been interested, not to say passionate about, King Richard III ever
since my professor of English History back in the late 60's required us to
read Josephine Tey's *The Daughter of Time* as a text for our course. Being
raised in the US, I didn't know anything about "the little princes in the
tower" at the time and had only seen bits and pieces of Shakespeare's play.
But I was gripped by Tey's historical detective sleuthing and have been
sympathetic to Richard's cause ever since. Reading books like Kendall's
cemented my sympathies.



So I have re-joined this Forum, having heard the recent exciting news of the
probable discovery of Richard's remains. I have a few questions. I am sure
many of them have been discussed here before this; if so, feel free to point
me in the direction of where I can find the answers.



I have read in a couple of the articles that the excavation in Leicester has
been funded by the Richard III Society. Is that true?



I recall the story of Richard's body being thrown into the Soar. I think
that was the way Kendall described it, so I thought it was pretty much
certain. I seem to recall there were some other stories that circulated as
to what had happened to Richard's remains. When I was a member of this Forum
a few years ago, I recall a discussion of Richard being buried in
Greyfriars. Now I see some external evidence, like a plaque nearby that says
it is the site of his burial. I believe I read in one article that a
monument to Richard was actually erected on the spot by Henry. I find this
fascinating and incredible. Would this possibly being an effort to assuage
his guilt for being a regicide? Or to placate Richard's angry spirit?



The recent articles indicated that the archeologists determined the probable
site of Greyfriars by studying a series of historic maps of the area over
centuries, indicating what probably lay under the car park. Are those maps
available online anywhere? Or in any books?



Looking at Leicester from Google Earth, how would I identify the Greyfriars
site? One person who was commenting online said that "King Richard's Road"
is pointing right at the spot. This is another clue that I find fascinating.
I didn't realize there was a road there called "King Richard's Road" and
that does suggest to me that there was a possibly substantial faction in the
area who remained loyal to Richard's memory.



Are there any pictures available of the discovery and uncovering of the
skeleton?



I understand the only other body nearby was a disarticulated skeleton of a
female. Does anyone have any idea who she might be and why her body would
have been disarticulated?



How did they determine that the man suffered from severe scoliosis? I read
in a couple places that it wouldn't have made him a "hunchback," though his
right shoulder would have been considerably higher than the left. As I
recall, some of the historic accounts of Richard are consistent with that. I
also recall reading that, trained for warfare, Richard's right side in any
case probably would have been more developed than his left side. So I
suppose the two things may have combined to make Richard's right shoulder
considerably more prominent than his left one. It is only natural that his
enemies would have seized on his most distinguishing physical feature as a
sign of malignity, which was commonly believed in that day anyway.



Is there a record of the excavations available online? Or will they be made
available?



I am thrilled and excited by this most amazing discovery. I certainly never
expected to see this day. I am only sorry that one of my best friends, Linda
Miller, a very talented artist who suffered from severe scoliosis and was
fascinated by Richard, has not survived to witness this event.



I am grateful to those responsible for this timely effort! Thank you all!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~














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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-19 12:36:01
Gilda Felt
On Sep 19, 2012, at 6:56 AM, Annette Carson wrote:
>
> Apologies that I don't have time to write more, but if you Google the
> subject you'll find lots of information in the media. By the way,
> for the
> information of other members, I've just read two very sensible press
> articles setting the matter straight about the destruction of
> Richard's
> reputation - by Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in
> The Daily
> Telegraph, both 14 September.

You can only read the Massie article if you subscribe to the paper,
but it appears from what you can see of his article of the 15th, that
the Queen has ruled out a royal burial (why am I not surprised?)
>
> As for "Maligned King" being available as an eBook, I declined the
> offer
> when I realized that, if done, the publisher's policy would be to
> wind down
> publication in print. No way!
> Regards, Annette

I certainly don't blame you for that!

Gilda

Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-19 13:00:16
Johanne Tournier
Dear Annette -

Thank you for the time you've taken to respond to my email, despite the
press of more "pressing" duties. Anything involving a request from your
publisher sounds urgent to me! I do particularly appreciate the details of
the links and the directions to the car park, trench and so on. I think I
should be able to pinpoint it now. Many of the sites in centrail Leicester
are identified, including the Cathedral and St. Martin's Church, but I
hadn't spotted the Council offices up to now.



I have been monitoring some of the press stories, since I saw the alert on
FoxNews (on my birthday!) about the initial discovery of the skeleton. But
of course I am hoping for more intimate anecdotes from people actually
involved in the project. So I hope some others here who may be involved will
chime in a bit when they have time. I am sure that the list archives would
have all the previous discussions; it's just a matter of me finding the time
to search for them. I'm a student in graduate divinity school, so my time is
limited, too. J



Regarding winding down the print editions if they put out an ebook edition -
wow! I've never heard of that before. Perhaps it's a policy peculiar to your
publisher?? I'm thinking because one of my texts for my theology course, and
written by my professor, is available on both kindle and in the print
edition. So maybe you could "sweet talk" your publisher into relenting . . .
you know, with a goal of reaching wider readership and so on. J



I was a member of the Society at one time . . . maybe it's time to re-join.
I will try to do so. I had a shelf of English history, and books on Richard
III in particular, which I lost when I moved a year and a half ago. They
included my copies of Kendall's book and *We Speak No Treason.* So now I'm
just trying to acquire a few books that are readily available - and there is
no doubt that books on kindle are the most readily available, since it only
takes about 30 sec. to download them. (Why can't they make personal
computers that are as trouble-free and user-friendly as the kindle, I would
like to know.) But as you may be aware, what is on kindle is very limited.
For example, they don't have either Kendall or *WSNT.* I have gotten Mr.
Ashdowne-Hill's book on Richard's last days and two historical novel sets,
*The Rose of York* by Sandra Worth, and *G - God and My Right,* and *G -
Loyalty Binds Me* by Christopher Rae.



If you want to chime in with more trivia bits when you have more time, I
would love to hear anything you might care to contribute! And, again, thanks
for your time! J



Best always,



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .





Oh, dear, and I was hoping someone else could step in to acquaint Johanne
with events of the recent past, as my last conversation with my publisher
has set me to resuming several tasks I had to drop in July when Leicester
took over.

I think the best place to start is by looking at news on the net - I noted
this link as a full report of the university's announcement made on 12
September of the results of the dig and the discovery of someone who may be
Richard III:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/richard-iii-leicester-dig-cu
rved-spine-could-be-clue-in-identifying-remains-8130443.html

Other forum members may know of better or more recent reports. There is also

the Richard III page on the website of the University of Leicester: I think
it's http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii

You ask whether it's true that the project received funding from the Richard

III Society, from which I assume you're not a member (please consider
joining if you care about Richard, they struggle with meagre funding that
comes almost solely from member subscriptions). Your membership will also
keep you updated on developments on this project. Yes, the Society gave what

they could afford, and more importantly, when the project hit a shortfall
two months ago a concerted effort was made by individual Ricardians, many of

them on this forum, which supplied the missing funds and enabled the dig to
go ahead. Donations also came from non-members and members of other
Ricardian organisations.

It is true that legends have confidently described the throwing into the
Soar, but this was debunked many decades ago - once again, this will be
known to Society members via articles in the publications they receive. It
is a recorded fact that Henry VII commissioned a commemorative tomb to be
erected in the Greyfriars in the 1490s - I could hazard a guess as to the
motivation, but it wouldn't be any more accurate than anyone else's guess
....

I have seen some of the maps that were used, but I really can't tell you
what archives they are in. Probably in Leicester, I would imagine. I have a
very nice souvenir guide entitled "Castle Park" which reproduces maps,
street plans and images of Leicester from Norman times onwards, in which are

reproduced some of the maps that were used in regression analysis. Published

by Leicestershire County Council, can't find a date, ISBN 0850223814.

Leicester has many roads named after Richard III, and its inhabitants don't
seem to harbour an attitude of cynicism about him, which is refreshing. If
you look for Leicester Cathedral (St Martin's) you will see a west-east road

running along the southern perimeter of its grounds. I forget its name - it
could be St Martin's Street. Immediately south of this road are (working
from west to east) a small car park and a larger car park, separated by a
narrow little street named New Street. Both car parks are entered from New
Street. The one to the east of New Street is the one where the dig started
and where Richard (if it is Richard) was found. Enclosing this car park to
the north and south are council offices. On the east side is a long brick
wall separating it from the car park of a disused school. This school car
park is where the third trench was excavated, the one which revealed the
tiles and tracery which belong to the Greyfriars church. Press photos have
shown one of our forum members working there on the dig, in case she would
like to identify herself ;-).

I personally have no information about the disarticulated female remains,
sorry.

The scoliosis (lateral curve) is visible with the naked eye and would have
caused one shoulder (the right) to have been higher than the other. The
media announcement describes it as 'severe scoliosis' and IIRC it says that
the right shoulder would have been 'visibly higher' (not 'considerably
higher'). It was not kyphosis which is a forward-backward curve which leads
its sufferers to be called 'hunchbacked' (or is there a kinder word for it
nowadays?). I am not sure about the underlying reasoning behind the use of
either of these two adjectives, unless to try to emphasize the likelihood of

identification with Richard. Certainly one of those who saw the spine
informed me that the misalignment of the shoulders would be barely visible,
especially when clothed. Let's see what the lab results eventually say.

Apologies that I don't have time to write more, but if you Google the
subject you'll find lots of information in the media. By the way, for the
information of other members, I've just read two very sensible press
articles setting the matter straight about the destruction of Richard's
reputation - by Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in The Daily
Telegraph, both 14 September.

As for "Maligned King" being available as an eBook, I declined the offer
when I realized that, if done, the publisher's policy would be to wind down
publication in print. No way!
Regards, Annette







Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-19 16:33:00
Annette Carson
In case you hadn't found this, here is the link to the Youtube video of the university's conference on 12 September:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k8mk1Kcgyh0


----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: A few questions . . .



Dear Annette -

Thank you for the time you've taken to respond to my email, despite the
press of more "pressing" duties. Anything involving a request from your
publisher sounds urgent to me! I do particularly appreciate the details of
the links and the directions to the car park, trench and so on. I think I
should be able to pinpoint it now. Many of the sites in centrail Leicester
are identified, including the Cathedral and St. Martin's Church, but I
hadn't spotted the Council offices up to now.

I have been monitoring some of the press stories, since I saw the alert on
FoxNews (on my birthday!) about the initial discovery of the skeleton. But
of course I am hoping for more intimate anecdotes from people actually
involved in the project. So I hope some others here who may be involved will
chime in a bit when they have time. I am sure that the list archives would
have all the previous discussions; it's just a matter of me finding the time
to search for them. I'm a student in graduate divinity school, so my time is
limited, too. J

Regarding winding down the print editions if they put out an ebook edition -
wow! I've never heard of that before. Perhaps it's a policy peculiar to your
publisher?? I'm thinking because one of my texts for my theology course, and
written by my professor, is available on both kindle and in the print
edition. So maybe you could "sweet talk" your publisher into relenting . . .
you know, with a goal of reaching wider readership and so on. J

I was a member of the Society at one time . . . maybe it's time to re-join.
I will try to do so. I had a shelf of English history, and books on Richard
III in particular, which I lost when I moved a year and a half ago. They
included my copies of Kendall's book and *We Speak No Treason.* So now I'm
just trying to acquire a few books that are readily available - and there is
no doubt that books on kindle are the most readily available, since it only
takes about 30 sec. to download them. (Why can't they make personal
computers that are as trouble-free and user-friendly as the kindle, I would
like to know.) But as you may be aware, what is on kindle is very limited.
For example, they don't have either Kendall or *WSNT.* I have gotten Mr.
Ashdowne-Hill's book on Richard's last days and two historical novel sets,
*The Rose of York* by Sandra Worth, and *G - God and My Right,* and *G -
Loyalty Binds Me* by Christopher Rae.

If you want to chime in with more trivia bits when you have more time, I
would love to hear anything you might care to contribute! And, again, thanks
for your time! J

Best always,

Johanne

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .

Oh, dear, and I was hoping someone else could step in to acquaint Johanne
with events of the recent past, as my last conversation with my publisher
has set me to resuming several tasks I had to drop in July when Leicester
took over.

I think the best place to start is by looking at news on the net - I noted
this link as a full report of the university's announcement made on 12
September of the results of the dig and the discovery of someone who may be
Richard III:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/richard-iii-leicester-dig-cu
rved-spine-could-be-clue-in-identifying-remains-8130443.html

Other forum members may know of better or more recent reports. There is also

the Richard III page on the website of the University of Leicester: I think
it's http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii

You ask whether it's true that the project received funding from the Richard

III Society, from which I assume you're not a member (please consider
joining if you care about Richard, they struggle with meagre funding that
comes almost solely from member subscriptions). Your membership will also
keep you updated on developments on this project. Yes, the Society gave what

they could afford, and more importantly, when the project hit a shortfall
two months ago a concerted effort was made by individual Ricardians, many of

them on this forum, which supplied the missing funds and enabled the dig to
go ahead. Donations also came from non-members and members of other
Ricardian organisations.

It is true that legends have confidently described the throwing into the
Soar, but this was debunked many decades ago - once again, this will be
known to Society members via articles in the publications they receive. It
is a recorded fact that Henry VII commissioned a commemorative tomb to be
erected in the Greyfriars in the 1490s - I could hazard a guess as to the
motivation, but it wouldn't be any more accurate than anyone else's guess
....

I have seen some of the maps that were used, but I really can't tell you
what archives they are in. Probably in Leicester, I would imagine. I have a
very nice souvenir guide entitled "Castle Park" which reproduces maps,
street plans and images of Leicester from Norman times onwards, in which are

reproduced some of the maps that were used in regression analysis. Published

by Leicestershire County Council, can't find a date, ISBN 0850223814.

Leicester has many roads named after Richard III, and its inhabitants don't
seem to harbour an attitude of cynicism about him, which is refreshing. If
you look for Leicester Cathedral (St Martin's) you will see a west-east road

running along the southern perimeter of its grounds. I forget its name - it
could be St Martin's Street. Immediately south of this road are (working
from west to east) a small car park and a larger car park, separated by a
narrow little street named New Street. Both car parks are entered from New
Street. The one to the east of New Street is the one where the dig started
and where Richard (if it is Richard) was found. Enclosing this car park to
the north and south are council offices. On the east side is a long brick
wall separating it from the car park of a disused school. This school car
park is where the third trench was excavated, the one which revealed the
tiles and tracery which belong to the Greyfriars church. Press photos have
shown one of our forum members working there on the dig, in case she would
like to identify herself ;-).

I personally have no information about the disarticulated female remains,
sorry.

The scoliosis (lateral curve) is visible with the naked eye and would have
caused one shoulder (the right) to have been higher than the other. The
media announcement describes it as 'severe scoliosis' and IIRC it says that
the right shoulder would have been 'visibly higher' (not 'considerably
higher'). It was not kyphosis which is a forward-backward curve which leads
its sufferers to be called 'hunchbacked' (or is there a kinder word for it
nowadays?). I am not sure about the underlying reasoning behind the use of
either of these two adjectives, unless to try to emphasize the likelihood of

identification with Richard. Certainly one of those who saw the spine
informed me that the misalignment of the shoulders would be barely visible,
especially when clothed. Let's see what the lab results eventually say.

Apologies that I don't have time to write more, but if you Google the
subject you'll find lots of information in the media. By the way, for the
information of other members, I've just read two very sensible press
articles setting the matter straight about the destruction of Richard's
reputation - by Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in The Daily
Telegraph, both 14 September.

As for "Maligned King" being available as an eBook, I declined the offer
when I realized that, if done, the publisher's policy would be to wind down
publication in print. No way!
Regards, Annette







Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-20 00:23:49
justcarol67
Annette Carson wrote:
> <snip> I've just read two very sensible press articles setting the matter straight about the destruction of Richard's reputation - by Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in The Daily Telegraph, both 14 September.

> You can only read the Massie article if you subscribe to the paper, but it appears from what you can see of his article of the 15th, that the Queen has ruled out a royal burial (why am I not surprised?)

Carol responds:

I have a copy of the Macintyre article (I have no idea how or why I could access it in the first place but luckily I copied it to Word. Since I can't attach a file to a post, I'll try to add it to this group's Files. If I succeed, you'll find the link in my next post.

Carol

Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-20 00:51:15
Gilda Felt
Got it. Thanks!

Gilda



On Sep 19, 2012, at 7:23 PM, justcarol67 wrote:

> Annette Carson wrote:
>> <snip> I've just read two very sensible press articles setting the
>> matter straight about the destruction of Richard's reputation - by
>> Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in The Daily
>> Telegraph, both 14 September.
>
>> You can only read the Massie article if you subscribe to the paper,
>> but it appears from what you can see of his article of the 15th,
>> that the Queen has ruled out a royal burial (why am I not surprised?)
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have a copy of the Macintyre article (I have no idea how or why I
> could access it in the first place but luckily I copied it to Word.
> Since I can't attach a file to a post, I'll try to add it to this
> group's Files. If I succeed, you'll find the link in my next post.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-20 00:55:40
Dorothea Preis
Thank you for saving this article and sharing!

Dorothea




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 20 September 2012 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .


 
Annette Carson wrote:
> <snip> I've just read two very sensible press articles setting the matter straight about the destruction of Richard's reputation - by Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in The Daily Telegraph, both 14 September.

> You can only read the Massie article if you subscribe to the paper, but it appears from what you can see of his article of the 15th, that the Queen has ruled out a royal burial (why am I not surprised?)

Carol responds:

I have a copy of the Macintyre article (I have no idea how or why I could access it in the first place but luckily I copied it to Word. Since I can't attach a file to a post, I'll try to add it to this group's Files. If I succeed, you'll find the link in my next post.

Carol




Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-20 09:11:35
Annette Carson
Just to set the record straight, I didn't write the comment about HM the Queen ruling out a royal burial - that was someone else.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .



Annette Carson wrote:
> <snip> I've just read two very sensible press articles setting the matter straight about the destruction of Richard's reputation - by Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in The Daily Telegraph, both 14 September.

> You can only read the Massie article if you subscribe to the paper, but it appears from what you can see of his article of the 15th, that the Queen has ruled out a royal burial (why am I not surprised?)

Carol responds:

I have a copy of the Macintyre article (I have no idea how or why I could access it in the first place but luckily I copied it to Word. Since I can't attach a file to a post, I'll try to add it to this group's Files. If I succeed, you'll find the link in my next post.

Carol





Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-20 10:11:48
Annette Carson
Some maps for you in this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19474848


----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: A few questions . . .



Hi, Coral!

Thanks for your welcome! I eagerly await the nitty-gritty details from
Annette! ( I would have already bought her book, but it doesn't seem to be
available for the kindle. :-()

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
c.nelson1@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .

Welcome back and hope Annette Carson can answer your questions as a very
knowlegeable and erudite person on Richard and the author of an excellent
and informative book. The Maligned King. Hope this helps and Annette
cananswer your questions. Coral

Sent from my BlackBerryR smartphone





Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-20 13:23:06
Judy Thomson
Bless you!
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .


 
Some maps for you in this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19474848

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: A few questions . . .

Hi, Coral!

Thanks for your welcome! I eagerly await the nitty-gritty details from
Annette! ( I would have already bought her book, but it doesn't seem to be
available for the kindle. :-()

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
c.nelson1@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A few questions . . .

Welcome back and hope Annette Carson can answer your questions as a very
knowlegeable and erudite person on Richard and the author of an excellent
and informative book. The Maligned King. Hope this helps and Annette
cananswer your questions. Coral

Sent from my BlackBerryR smartphone






Re: A few questions . . .

2012-09-20 13:55:35
EileenB
Me too..Thank you...Sums it all up in a nutshell too....This would be good reading for someone who is just starting to learn about Richard......Eileen

--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
> Got it. Thanks!
>
> Gilda
>
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 7:23 PM, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> > Annette Carson wrote:
> >> <snip> I've just read two very sensible press articles setting the
> >> matter straight about the destruction of Richard's reputation - by
> >> Ben Macintyre in The Times and by Allan Massie in The Daily
> >> Telegraph, both 14 September.
> >
> >> You can only read the Massie article if you subscribe to the paper,
> >> but it appears from what you can see of his article of the 15th,
> >> that the Queen has ruled out a royal burial (why am I not surprised?)
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I have a copy of the Macintyre article (I have no idea how or why I
> > could access it in the first place but luckily I copied it to Word.
> > Since I can't attach a file to a post, I'll try to add it to this
> > group's Files. If I succeed, you'll find the link in my next post.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: A few questions . . .,David Baldwin

2012-09-20 17:23:13
justcarol67
"Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Just to set the record straight, I didn't write the comment about HM the Queen ruling out a royal burial - that was someone else.

Carol responds:

Yikes. Sorry. Bad snipping on my part. Also, my apologies for six posts in a row yesterday--so much going on here that I felt compelled to respond to everything.

By the way, I'm reading David Baldwin's supposedly objective "Richard III," which appears to be woefully underresearched, though I did like his reference to Michael Hicks's depiction of Richard as "his Richard," implying that Hicks's Richard is the product of his own imagination (and animus against Richard)--which, in my opinion, it is. I also found Baldwin's explanation of the Countess of Oxford affair somewhat enlightening. He didn't rob a sixty-year-old woman of her lands, just "convinced" her to will the lands to him instead of to her traitor son (if I understand correctly--will have to go back and reread it more carefully). But his theory that Richard took the throne (executing a few innocent people along the way) because he feared that he'd lose his Warwick holdings seems weak at best. He doesn't even consider the possibility that Richard's life was really in danger.

Carol

Re: A few questions . . .,David Baldwin

2012-09-20 18:28:56
Paul Trevor Bale
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:23, justcarol67 wrote:

> By the way, I'm reading David Baldwin's supposedly objective "Richard III," which appears to be woefully underresearched

My feelings too Carol. Sloppy.
I am going to a conference in October that he is speaking at.
I have a long list of questions his book brought up! And corrections!
he will need a helmet.....:-)

Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-20 18:48:47
justcarol67
Carol earlier:
> > By the way, I'm reading David Baldwin's supposedly objective "Richard III," which appears to be woefully underresearched.

Paul responded:
> My feelings too Carol. Sloppy.
> I am going to a conference in October that he is speaking at.
> I have a long list of questions his book brought up! And corrections!
> he will need a helmet.....:-)


Carol again:

Oh, good. I can't wait to read your posts after the conference. Can you give us an idea of the topics (not the specific questions) that you plan to ask him about? (And just a suggestion--be sure to start with the most important question in case he's reluctant to answer more than one!)

Carol

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-20 21:17:43
KATHRYN WILLIAMS
Agreed, it leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
Elaine 

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 01:05:59
justcarol67
KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
>
> Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.

> Elaine 

Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.

Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.

Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.

Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.

By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!

Carol

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 02:04:08
Karen Clark
I can't find my link to it, so I don't have the exact words, but Cecily did
write in her will that her son Edward was the true son of his father. I'll
give the quote once I find the link! I don't have Baldwin's Richard book,
but I do have Kingmaker's Sisters, which is a bit shaky in places. A good
start, I suppose, in looking at the lives of these women but it could be
better.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:05:56 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: David Baldwin








KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
>
> Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. There are so many gaps
in it and generalised assumptions.

> Elaine

Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to
Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.

Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's
letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore.
As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.

Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him
often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for
slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't
seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or
rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only
shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not
written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.

Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle
Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most
of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind
devotion to Sir Thomas More.

By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once
stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that
she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why
she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime
and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's
merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But
does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course,
have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I
didn't invent it!

Carol









Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 02:26:29
Karen Clark
Sorry, that should have read 'true son of her husband'. Still looking for my
link to he will.

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:03:54 +1000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin






I can't find my link to it, so I don't have the exact words, but Cecily did
write in her will that her son Edward was the true son of his father. I'll
give the quote once I find the link! I don't have Baldwin's Richard book,
but I do have Kingmaker's Sisters, which is a bit shaky in places. A good
start, I suppose, in looking at the lives of these women but it could be
better.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:05:56 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: David Baldwin

KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
>
> Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. There are so many gaps
in it and generalised assumptions.

> Elaine

Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to
Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.

Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's
letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore.
As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.

Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him
often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for
slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't
seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or
rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only
shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not
written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.

Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle
Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most
of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind
devotion to Sir Thomas More.

By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once
stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that
she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why
she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime
and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's
merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But
does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course,
have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I
didn't invent it!

Carol











Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 03:30:11
Karen Clark
Here it is: "I Cecill wif unto the right noble prince Richard late Duke of
yorke Fader unto the most christen prince my Lord and son king Edward the
iiijth"

(with a big thank you to the Article Fairy!)

Karen


From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:26:14 +1000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin






Sorry, that should have read 'true son of her husband'. Still looking for my
link to he will.

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...
<mailto:ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:03:54 +1000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin

I can't find my link to it, so I don't have the exact words, but Cecily did
write in her will that her son Edward was the true son of his father. I'll
give the quote once I find the link! I don't have Baldwin's Richard book,
but I do have Kingmaker's Sisters, which is a bit shaky in places. A good
start, I suppose, in looking at the lives of these women but it could be
better.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:05:56 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: David Baldwin

KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
>
> Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. There are so many gaps
in it and generalised assumptions.

> Elaine

Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to
Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.

Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's
letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore.
As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.

Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him
often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for
slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't
seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or
rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only
shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not
written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.

Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle
Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most
of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind
devotion to Sir Thomas More.

By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once
stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that
she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why
she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime
and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's
merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But
does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course,
have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I
didn't invent it!

Carol













Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 04:10:28
justcarol67
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Here it is: "I Cecill wif unto the right noble prince Richard late Duke of yorke Fader unto the most christen prince my Lord and son king Edward the iiijth"
\Carol respondsL

Thanks, Karen, but I already knew that Cecily mentioned Edward (but not Richard) in her will. The reference is a good refutation for the argument that Edward was illegitimate, but I was looking for Cecily's statement (not in the will) that she was the mother of two kings (Richard as well as Edward). I know I read it somewhere, I just can't remember where.

Carol

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 18:13:23
liz williams
Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
Subject: Re: David Baldwin


 


KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
>
> Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.

> Elaine 

Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.

Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.

Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.

Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.

By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!

Carol




Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 18:32:17
EileenB
Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..

What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.

And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
>
>
> KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
>
> > Elaine 
>
> Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
>
> Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
>
> Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
>
> Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
>
> By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 18:38:48
EileenB
Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
>
> What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
>
> And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> >
> > > Elaine 
> >
> > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> >
> > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> >
> > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> >
> > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> >
> > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 19:07:12
justcarol67
liz williams wrote:
>
> Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 

Carol responds:

Margaret of York supported Richard's friend Francis Lovell and her (and Richard's) nephew John Earl of Lincoln in their failed attempt to overthrow Henry VII in the Battle of Stoke (the *real* but generally forgotten last battle of the Wars of the Roses). And she backed Perkin Warbeck (whether or not he was another nephew) some years later. Henry considered her an enemy. (I thought he had called her "that pestiferous woman" but--blush!--the phrase comes from Agnes Strickland's Victorian-era historical romance "The Pilgrims of Walsingham.")

What Cecily thought of it all, I don't know. Based on her fierce allegiance to her late husband and his claim to the throne, I suspect that, whatever her feelings about Richard's deposing Edward's son, she would rather have any Yorkist descendant on the throne than Henry Tudor. I would love to know whether Margaret was in correspondence with her, as she (Margaret) certainly was with Richard.

As for Richard's other sisters, Anne was dead (fortunately, since Richard had to execute her second husband for treason--Anne had a gift for marrying the wrong man!), but Elizabeth didn't die until 1503. Did she support her son John in his rebellion against Henry Tudor? Did she back her younger son, Edmund, when he rebelled in 1501? I just don't know. She seems to be a forgotten figure who spent most of her time between 1462 and 1480 pregnant or in childbirth. I think she attended Richard's coronation, but I'm not sure. Probably she experienced a lot of sorrow but (like her husband, the Duke of Suffolk) stayed out of politics.

Anyway, I think Margaret's actions showed that she supported Richard as king but after his death would rather have had any Yorkist, including the nephew his Parliament had bastardized (or a pretend Yorkist indebted to her and unable to reveal his real identity) than the usurping Tudor.

Carol, who needs to find a good biography of Margaret if one exists

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 19:35:25
Judy Thomson
In re: Margaret d'York, I believe Tudor called her "that diabolical duchess," and she may have liked that right well.

:-) Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin


 
liz williams wrote:
>
> Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 

Carol responds:

Margaret of York supported Richard's friend Francis Lovell and her (and Richard's) nephew John Earl of Lincoln in their failed attempt to overthrow Henry VII in the Battle of Stoke (the *real* but generally forgotten last battle of the Wars of the Roses). And she backed Perkin Warbeck (whether or not he was another nephew) some years later. Henry considered her an enemy. (I thought he had called her "that pestiferous woman" but--blush!--the phrase comes from Agnes Strickland's Victorian-era historical romance "The Pilgrims of Walsingham.")

What Cecily thought of it all, I don't know. Based on her fierce allegiance to her late husband and his claim to the throne, I suspect that, whatever her feelings about Richard's deposing Edward's son, she would rather have any Yorkist descendant on the throne than Henry Tudor. I would love to know whether Margaret was in correspondence with her, as she (Margaret) certainly was with Richard.

As for Richard's other sisters, Anne was dead (fortunately, since Richard had to execute her second husband for treason--Anne had a gift for marrying the wrong man!), but Elizabeth didn't die until 1503. Did she support her son John in his rebellion against Henry Tudor? Did she back her younger son, Edmund, when he rebelled in 1501? I just don't know. She seems to be a forgotten figure who spent most of her time between 1462 and 1480 pregnant or in childbirth. I think she attended Richard's coronation, but I'm not sure. Probably she experienced a lot of sorrow but (like her husband, the Duke of Suffolk) stayed out of politics.

Anyway, I think Margaret's actions showed that she supported Richard as king but after his death would rather have had any Yorkist, including the nephew his Parliament had bastardized (or a pretend Yorkist indebted to her and unable to reveal his real identity) than the usurping Tudor.

Carol, who needs to find a good biography of Margaret if one exists




Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 19:47:58
liz williams
Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
Subject: Re: David Baldwin


 
Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
>
> What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
>
> And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> >
> > > Elaine 
> >
> > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> >
> > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> >
> > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> >
> > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> >
> > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>




Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 22:11:36
justcarol67
Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> In re: Margaret d'York, I believe Tudor called her "that diabolical duchess," and she may have liked that right well.

Carol responds:

Oho! Thank you! Your response led me to this biography:

"Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess" by Christine Weightman

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6097523-margaret-of-york

Has anyone read it and is it any good?

Carol

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 22:33:58
ellrosa1452
Carol
Apologies for the mix up with the names but when I click reply to group it goes straight to my email which is why is said Kathryn not Elaine. Must remember not to do it again!

Re: Baldwin's book - I have a copy here courtesy of the local library so if you want to any endnotes checking let me know.

As regards Cecily not forgiving Richard, he makes the assumption on the premise that she omits his name in her will. But there were reasons this for this, chiefly political expediency, especially when one considers who was now reigning in Richard's stead. The reference he cites is Testamenta Vestusta, ii,(1826) pp422-3, by N H Nicolas. As you pointed out in another example he reinterprets a letter Richard sent to his mother, "And madam I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort" to imply that there had been a lack of contact between them.

Snip>>>
Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.

The citation given for Cecily's comments are Vergil (ed, Ellis)
pp184-5.

I don't think anyone is as hostile as Seward and his hatchet job although Hicks and Weir are bad. I'm somewhat surprised at Baldwin because he is connected to the Richard III Foundation and sits on the panel. He also assumes that Richard's disrupted early life explains his behaviour and actions in later life in a negative way.

BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
Elaine

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
>
> > Elaine 
>
> Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
>
> Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
>
> Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
>
> Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
>
> By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
>
> Carol
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-22 23:09:44
Judy Thomson
Whatever the frequency of their correspondence, there's every reason to believe Richard squeezed in a visit to his mother at Berkhampsted on Tuesday 17 May 1485 (Public Records Office, Chancery 81/907/1071). He may have stayed a bit  longer, in fact; his next recorded appearance was Sunday the 22nd at Kenilworth (see BL ms Harleian 433, Vol. 1, p. 62).

Unless she refused to see him? But rumour of *that* would have spread faster than lice in a Southwarke stew....

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin


 

Carol
Apologies for the mix up with the names but when I click reply to group it goes straight to my email which is why is said Kathryn not Elaine. Must remember not to do it again!

Re: Baldwin's book - I have a copy here courtesy of the local library so if you want to any endnotes checking let me know.

As regards Cecily not forgiving Richard, he makes the assumption on the premise that she omits his name in her will. But there were reasons this for this, chiefly political expediency, especially when one considers who was now reigning in Richard's stead. The reference he cites is Testamenta Vestusta, ii,(1826) pp422-3, by N H Nicolas. As you pointed out in another example he reinterprets a letter Richard sent to his mother, "And madam I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort" to imply that there had been a lack of contact between them.

Snip>>>
Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.

The citation given for Cecily's comments are Vergil (ed, Ellis)
pp184-5.

I don't think anyone is as hostile as Seward and his hatchet job although Hicks and Weir are bad. I'm somewhat surprised at Baldwin because he is connected to the Richard III Foundation and sits on the panel. He also assumes that Richard's disrupted early life explains his behaviour and actions in later life in a negative way.

BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
Elaine

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
>
> > Elaine 
>
> Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
>
> Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
>
> Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
>
> Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
>
> By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
>
> Carol
>




Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 01:15:04
justcarol67
Elaine wrote:
<snip>
> Re: Baldwin's book - I have a copy here courtesy of the local library so if you want to any endnotes checking let me know.
>
> As regards Cecily not forgiving Richard, he makes the assumption on the premise that she omits his name in her will. But there were reasons this for this, chiefly political expediency, especially when one considers who was now reigning in Richard's stead. The reference he cites is Testamenta Vestusta, ii,(1826) pp422-3, by N H Nicolas. As you pointed out in another example he reinterprets a letter Richard sent to his mother, "And madam I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort" to imply that there had been a lack of contact between them.

> The citation given for Cecily's comments are Vergil (ed, Ellis)
> pp184-5. <snip>

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for your trouble. It's as I suspected, nothing but inference (and Vergil!). Honestly, Baldwin should be ashamed.

Regarding Lynom and Mistress Shore, Kendall says that Lynom chose not to marry "Jane," but I'm sure he's mistaken. I don't have any other full biographies on hand except the wretched Seward, who doesn't mention Lynom (of course).

Carol, still not sure what to do with the processed tree carcass (Seward's Folly)
>

Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 01:27:59
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
> Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> >
> > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> >
> > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > >
> > > > Elaine 
> > >
> > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > >
> > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > >
> > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > >
> > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 11:53:04
EileenB
Baldwin does make an interesting point. But he may well be barking up the wrong tree. It does not appear that Cecily took umbrage with Richard over his taking over the throne from his nephew as he was staying at that time at her London home, Baynards Castle, and using it for important meetings and it was there that he was offered the throne on 25th June.

I do find it a little worrying that Richard might appear prima facie, in his letter to her dated 3 June 1484, to be pleading for Cecily to keep in regular contact. But this might just be the rather flowery mode of letter writing at that time. A good sign is that Cecily kept his letter, which is still extant. Would she have done this if she felt peeved towards Richard? Maybe..Of course Cecily may well have replied to it....and there may have been regular correspondence between them which has not survived. It would have been rather cold of her to turn her back on Richard after his recent bereavements....

Eileen


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Whatever the frequency of their correspondence, there's every reason to believe Richard squeezed in a visit to his mother at Berkhampsted on Tuesday 17 May 1485 (Public Records Office, Chancery 81/907/1071). He may have stayed a bit  longer, in fact; his next recorded appearance was Sunday the 22nd at Kenilworth (see BL ms Harleian 433, Vol. 1, p. 62).
>
> Unless she refused to see him? But rumour of *that* would have spread faster than lice in a Southwarke stew....
>
> Judy 
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
>
> Carol
> Apologies for the mix up with the names but when I click reply to group it goes straight to my email which is why is said Kathryn not Elaine. Must remember not to do it again!
>
> Re: Baldwin's book - I have a copy here courtesy of the local library so if you want to any endnotes checking let me know.
>
> As regards Cecily not forgiving Richard, he makes the assumption on the premise that she omits his name in her will. But there were reasons this for this, chiefly political expediency, especially when one considers who was now reigning in Richard's stead. The reference he cites is Testamenta Vestusta, ii,(1826) pp422-3, by N H Nicolas. As you pointed out in another example he reinterprets a letter Richard sent to his mother, "And madam I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort" to imply that there had been a lack of contact between them.
>
> Snip>>>
> Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
>
> The citation given for Cecily's comments are Vergil (ed, Ellis)
> pp184-5.
>
> I don't think anyone is as hostile as Seward and his hatchet job although Hicks and Weir are bad. I'm somewhat surprised at Baldwin because he is connected to the Richard III Foundation and sits on the panel. He also assumes that Richard's disrupted early life explains his behaviour and actions in later life in a negative way.
>
> BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> >
> > > Elaine 
> >
> > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> >
> > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> >
> > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> >
> > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> >
> > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 14:08:15
Judy Thomson
I lean toward the "flowery mode" as I've noted similar language in other letters from other people. I recall many signed "Your lover," for example. Must we infer a physical relationship? No, it was a common sign off among people of close affinity. Even words like "beseech" might be closer to "beseek" (i.e., seek). Warm, chatty letters weren't yet in vogue. Even the Paston letters sometimes read as rather formal. The "Valentine" group are more exception than rule.

At the time of Richard's letter, his mother was "closeted" as a near-Religious (a Benedictine, as I recall). While not a nun, her life would have been regimented. This may well have curtailed her letter output. Who know? But it's a factor to consider in the mix.

But the facts do remain he stayed with her in those early days and then visited Berkhamsted in May 1485. No strategic or political reasons can be spun to account for this stay.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:53 AM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin


 
Baldwin does make an interesting point. But he may well be barking up the wrong tree. It does not appear that Cecily took umbrage with Richard over his taking over the throne from his nephew as he was staying at that time at her London home, Baynards Castle, and using it for important meetings and it was there that he was offered the throne on 25th June.

I do find it a little worrying that Richard might appear prima facie, in his letter to her dated 3 June 1484, to be pleading for Cecily to keep in regular contact. But this might just be the rather flowery mode of letter writing at that time. A good sign is that Cecily kept his letter, which is still extant. Would she have done this if she felt peeved towards Richard? Maybe..Of course Cecily may well have replied to it....and there may have been regular correspondence between them which has not survived. It would have been rather cold of her to turn her back on Richard after his recent bereavements....

Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Whatever the frequency of their correspondence, there's every reason to believe Richard squeezed in a visit to his mother at Berkhampsted on Tuesday 17 May 1485 (Public Records Office, Chancery 81/907/1071). He may have stayed a bit  longer, in fact; his next recorded appearance was Sunday the 22nd at Kenilworth (see BL ms Harleian 433, Vol. 1, p. 62).
>
> Unless she refused to see him? But rumour of *that* would have spread faster than lice in a Southwarke stew....
>
> Judy 
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
>
> Carol
> Apologies for the mix up with the names but when I click reply to group it goes straight to my email which is why is said Kathryn not Elaine. Must remember not to do it again!
>
> Re: Baldwin's book - I have a copy here courtesy of the local library so if you want to any endnotes checking let me know.
>
> As regards Cecily not forgiving Richard, he makes the assumption on the premise that she omits his name in her will. But there were reasons this for this, chiefly political expediency, especially when one considers who was now reigning in Richard's stead. The reference he cites is Testamenta Vestusta, ii,(1826) pp422-3, by N H Nicolas. As you pointed out in another example he reinterprets a letter Richard sent to his mother, "And madam I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort" to imply that there had been a lack of contact between them.
>
> Snip>>>
> Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
>
> The citation given for Cecily's comments are Vergil (ed, Ellis)
> pp184-5.
>
> I don't think anyone is as hostile as Seward and his hatchet job although Hicks and Weir are bad. I'm somewhat surprised at Baldwin because he is connected to the Richard III Foundation and sits on the panel. He also assumes that Richard's disrupted early life explains his behaviour and actions in later life in a negative way.
>
> BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> >
> > > Elaine 
> >
> > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> >
> > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> >
> > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> >
> > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> >
> > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 15:09:27
liz williams
________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
> Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> >
> > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> >
> > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).à It must have been simplyàdreadful.à
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > >
> > >
> > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. àThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > >
> > > > Elaineà
> > >
> > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > >
> > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > >
> > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > >
> > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 15:11:12
liz williams
Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear

 now she was the King's mum


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
> Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> >
> > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> >
> > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).à It must have been simplyàdreadful.à
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > >
> > >
> > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. àThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > >
> > > > Elaineà
> > >
> > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > >
> > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > >
> > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > >
> > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 16:10:07
b.eileen25
Judy....I would think it possible after all the tragedies suffered by Cicely that perhaps she just wanted to withdraw from the outside world....Maybe spend a lot of time in prayer. Perhaps she had to be encouraged to keep in contact with family members.

Of the many griefs Cicely had to bear I would have thought one of the most horrendous was that of one son having another son executed. I often ponder about what was said at the time between Edward and Cicely....did she beg, did she bargain, threaten never to speak to him again? If she knew the true reason behind George's execution, that he had found out about the pre-contract...would that not make it worse. How did this lady ever survive?

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I lean toward the "flowery mode" as I've noted similar language in other letters from other people. I recall many signed "Your lover," for example. Must we infer a physical relationship? No, it was a common sign off among people of close affinity. Even words like "beseech" might be closer to "beseek" (i.e., seek). Warm, chatty letters weren't yet in vogue. Even the Paston letters sometimes read as rather formal. The "Valentine" group are more exception than rule.
>
> At the time of Richard's letter, his mother was "closeted" as a near-Religious (a Benedictine, as I recall). While not a nun, her life would have been regimented. This may well have curtailed her letter output. Who know? But it's a factor to consider in the mix.
>
> But the facts do remain he stayed with her in those early days and then visited Berkhamsted in May 1485. No strategic or political reasons can be spun to account for this stay.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:53 AM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
> Baldwin does make an interesting point. But he may well be barking up the wrong tree. It does not appear that Cecily took umbrage with Richard over his taking over the throne from his nephew as he was staying at that time at her London home, Baynards Castle, and using it for important meetings and it was there that he was offered the throne on 25th June.
>
> I do find it a little worrying that Richard might appear prima facie, in his letter to her dated 3 June 1484, to be pleading for Cecily to keep in regular contact. But this might just be the rather flowery mode of letter writing at that time. A good sign is that Cecily kept his letter, which is still extant. Would she have done this if she felt peeved towards Richard? Maybe..Of course Cecily may well have replied to it....and there may have been regular correspondence between them which has not survived. It would have been rather cold of her to turn her back on Richard after his recent bereavements....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Whatever the frequency of their correspondence, there's every reason to believe Richard squeezed in a visit to his mother at Berkhampsted on Tuesday 17 May 1485 (Public Records Office, Chancery 81/907/1071). He may have stayed a bit  longer, in fact; his next recorded appearance was Sunday the 22nd at Kenilworth (see BL ms Harleian 433, Vol. 1, p. 62).
> >
> > Unless she refused to see him? But rumour of *that* would have spread faster than lice in a Southwarke stew....
> >
> > Judy 
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Carol
> > Apologies for the mix up with the names but when I click reply to group it goes straight to my email which is why is said Kathryn not Elaine. Must remember not to do it again!
> >
> > Re: Baldwin's book - I have a copy here courtesy of the local library so if you want to any endnotes checking let me know.
> >
> > As regards Cecily not forgiving Richard, he makes the assumption on the premise that she omits his name in her will. But there were reasons this for this, chiefly political expediency, especially when one considers who was now reigning in Richard's stead. The reference he cites is Testamenta Vestusta, ii,(1826) pp422-3, by N H Nicolas. As you pointed out in another example he reinterprets a letter Richard sent to his mother, "And madam I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort" to imply that there had been a lack of contact between them.
> >
> > Snip>>>
> > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> >
> > The citation given for Cecily's comments are Vergil (ed, Ellis)
> > pp184-5.
> >
> > I don't think anyone is as hostile as Seward and his hatchet job although Hicks and Weir are bad. I'm somewhat surprised at Baldwin because he is connected to the Richard III Foundation and sits on the panel. He also assumes that Richard's disrupted early life explains his behaviour and actions in later life in a negative way.
> >
> > BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > >
> > > > Elaine 
> > >
> > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > >
> > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > >
> > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > >
> > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 16:18:19
mcjohn\_wt\_net
"Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
>
>  now she was the King's mum
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> >
> >
> >  
> > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > >
> > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > >
> > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > >
> > > > > Elaine 
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 16:20:26
EileenB
Liz...trying to remember where I read it..which was very recently. The trouble is I have about 3 books on the go at the moment.....Ill check it out later

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
>
>  now she was the King's mum
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> >
> >
> >  
> > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > >
> > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > >
> > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > >
> > > > > Elaine 
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 16:24:12
EileenB
Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> >
> >  now she was the King's mum
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> >  
> > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > >
> > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > >
> > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here how  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).  It must have been simply dreadful. 
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Elaine 
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 16:29:15
mcjohn\_wt\_net
One of the saddest notes of the awful mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 was that one of the relatives of the Bird twins had to explain to their mother that Derrick had begun his rampage by shooting his twin brother David to death. I don't know that Ms. Bird ever gave any interviews after the massacre; I probably would have slid under the bed, put my arms over my head, and stayed there indefinitely.

--- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Judy....I would think it possible after all the tragedies suffered by Cicely that perhaps she just wanted to withdraw from the outside world....Maybe spend a lot of time in prayer. Perhaps she had to be encouraged to keep in contact with family members.
>
> Of the many griefs Cicely had to bear I would have thought one of the most horrendous was that of one son having another son executed. I often ponder about what was said at the time between Edward and Cicely....did she beg, did she bargain, threaten never to speak to him again? If she knew the true reason behind George's execution, that he had found out about the pre-contract...would that not make it worse. How did this lady ever survive?
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 16:37:34
EileenB
God...some people really suffer dont they.......that poor lady. I had forgotten about that..

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> One of the saddest notes of the awful mass shooting in Cumbria in 2010 was that one of the relatives of the Bird twins had to explain to their mother that Derrick had begun his rampage by shooting his twin brother David to death. I don't know that Ms. Bird ever gave any interviews after the massacre; I probably would have slid under the bed, put my arms over my head, and stayed there indefinitely.
>
> --- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Judy....I would think it possible after all the tragedies suffered by Cicely that perhaps she just wanted to withdraw from the outside world....Maybe spend a lot of time in prayer. Perhaps she had to be encouraged to keep in contact with family members.
> >
> > Of the many griefs Cicely had to bear I would have thought one of the most horrendous was that of one son having another son executed. I often ponder about what was said at the time between Edward and Cicely....did she beg, did she bargain, threaten never to speak to him again? If she knew the true reason behind George's execution, that he had found out about the pre-contract...would that not make it worse. How did this lady ever survive?
> >
>

Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 16:40:22
liz williams
I'm normally like that but at the moment I am re-reading all my Ricardian books, one by one,  to make sure I am up to speed.  I'#m also in a  book group but for October at least that is on the back burner.  Of course when it is next my turn to choose I may just have to choose a book that will introduce them to the truth....



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:20
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Liz...trying to remember where I read it..which was very recently. The trouble is I have about 3 books on the go at the moment.....Ill check it out later

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
>
>  now she was the King's mum
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?à I am amazed ....
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> >
> >
> > à
> > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > >
> > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > >
> > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’â¬aà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’â¬aà It must have been simplyÃ’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > >
> > > > > ElaineÃ’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 16:46:09
liz williams
I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> >
> >  now she was the King's mum
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> >  
> > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?à I am amazed ....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > >
> > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > >
> > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’â¬aà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’â¬aà It must have been simplyÃ’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > > ElaineÃ’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>




Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 17:14:14
Judy Thomson
My thoughts, also. Thanks, Eileen.  I've seen this very phenomenon in today's world enough to find the idea extremely credible.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: b.eileen25 <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin


 
Judy....I would think it possible after all the tragedies suffered by Cicely that perhaps she just wanted to withdraw from the outside world....Maybe spend a lot of time in prayer. Perhaps she had to be encouraged to keep in contact with family members.

Of the many griefs Cicely had to bear I would have thought one of the most horrendous was that of one son having another son executed. I often ponder about what was said at the time between Edward and Cicely....did she beg, did she bargain, threaten never to speak to him again? If she knew the true reason behind George's execution, that he had found out about the pre-contract...would that not make it worse. How did this lady ever survive?

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I lean toward the "flowery mode" as I've noted similar language in other letters from other people. I recall many signed "Your lover," for example. Must we infer a physical relationship? No, it was a common sign off among people of close affinity. Even words like "beseech" might be closer to "beseek" (i.e., seek). Warm, chatty letters weren't yet in vogue. Even the Paston letters sometimes read as rather formal. The "Valentine" group are more exception than rule.
>
> At the time of Richard's letter, his mother was "closeted" as a near-Religious (a Benedictine, as I recall). While not a nun, her life would have been regimented. This may well have curtailed her letter output. Who know? But it's a factor to consider in the mix.
>
> But the facts do remain he stayed with her in those early days and then visited Berkhamsted in May 1485. No strategic or political reasons can be spun to account for this stay.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:53 AM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
> Baldwin does make an interesting point. But he may well be barking up the wrong tree. It does not appear that Cecily took umbrage with Richard over his taking over the throne from his nephew as he was staying at that time at her London home, Baynards Castle, and using it for important meetings and it was there that he was offered the throne on 25th June.
>
> I do find it a little worrying that Richard might appear prima facie, in his letter to her dated 3 June 1484, to be pleading for Cecily to keep in regular contact. But this might just be the rather flowery mode of letter writing at that time. A good sign is that Cecily kept his letter, which is still extant. Would she have done this if she felt peeved towards Richard? Maybe..Of course Cecily may well have replied to it....and there may have been regular correspondence between them which has not survived. It would have been rather cold of her to turn her back on Richard after his recent bereavements....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Whatever the frequency of their correspondence, there's every reason to believe Richard squeezed in a visit to his mother at Berkhampsted on Tuesday 17 May 1485 (Public Records Office, Chancery 81/907/1071). He may have stayed a bit àlonger, in fact; his next recorded appearance was Sunday the 22nd at Kenilworth (see BL ms Harleian 433, Vol. 1, p. 62).
> >
> > Unless she refused to see him? But rumour of *that* would have spread faster than lice in a Southwarke stew....
> >
> > Judyà
> > à
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Carol
> > Apologies for the mix up with the names but when I click reply to group it goes straight to my email which is why is said Kathryn not Elaine. Must remember not to do it again!
> >
> > Re: Baldwin's book - I have a copy here courtesy of the local library so if you want to any endnotes checking let me know.
> >
> > As regards Cecily not forgiving Richard, he makes the assumption on the premise that she omits his name in her will. But there were reasons this for this, chiefly political expediency, especially when one considers who was now reigning in Richard's stead. The reference he cites is Testamenta Vestusta, ii,(1826) pp422-3, by N H Nicolas. As you pointed out in another example he reinterprets a letter Richard sent to his mother, "And madam I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort" to imply that there had been a lack of contact between them.
> >
> > Snip>>>
> > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> >
> > The citation given for Cecily's comments are Vergil (ed, Ellis)
> > pp184-5.
> >
> > I don't think anyone is as hostile as Seward and his hatchet job although Hicks and Weir are bad. I'm somewhat surprised at Baldwin because he is connected to the Richard III Foundation and sits on the panel. He also assumes that Richard's disrupted early life explains his behaviour and actions in later life in a negative way.
> >
> > BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. àThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > >
> > > > Elaineà
> > >
> > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > >
> > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > >
> > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > >
> > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 17:21:00
EileenB
Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'

"Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > >
> > >  now she was the King's mum
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > >
> > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃÆ'‚  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).ÃÆ'‚  It must have been simplyÃÆ'‚ dreadful.ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. ÃÆ'‚ There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ElaineÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 17:25:39
EileenB
Judy...I think at times of great sorrow a person with faith can be saved by their faith and gain strength from it.

By the by....I wonder if Cecily was allowed a last meeting with George...I would love to know all the miniutiae...the human factor and what made them tick.

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> My thoughts, also. Thanks, Eileen.  I've seen this very phenomenon in today's world enough to find the idea extremely credible.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: b.eileen25 <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
> Judy....I would think it possible after all the tragedies suffered by Cicely that perhaps she just wanted to withdraw from the outside world....Maybe spend a lot of time in prayer. Perhaps she had to be encouraged to keep in contact with family members.
>
> Of the many griefs Cicely had to bear I would have thought one of the most horrendous was that of one son having another son executed. I often ponder about what was said at the time between Edward and Cicely....did she beg, did she bargain, threaten never to speak to him again? If she knew the true reason behind George's execution, that he had found out about the pre-contract...would that not make it worse. How did this lady ever survive?
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > I lean toward the "flowery mode" as I've noted similar language in other letters from other people. I recall many signed "Your lover," for example. Must we infer a physical relationship? No, it was a common sign off among people of close affinity. Even words like "beseech" might be closer to "beseek" (i.e., seek). Warm, chatty letters weren't yet in vogue. Even the Paston letters sometimes read as rather formal. The "Valentine" group are more exception than rule.
> >
> > At the time of Richard's letter, his mother was "closeted" as a near-Religious (a Benedictine, as I recall). While not a nun, her life would have been regimented. This may well have curtailed her letter output. Who know? But it's a factor to consider in the mix.
> >
> > But the facts do remain he stayed with her in those early days and then visited Berkhamsted in May 1485. No strategic or political reasons can be spun to account for this stay.
> >
> > Judy
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> >
> >
> >  
> > Baldwin does make an interesting point. But he may well be barking up the wrong tree. It does not appear that Cecily took umbrage with Richard over his taking over the throne from his nephew as he was staying at that time at her London home, Baynards Castle, and using it for important meetings and it was there that he was offered the throne on 25th June.
> >
> > I do find it a little worrying that Richard might appear prima facie, in his letter to her dated 3 June 1484, to be pleading for Cecily to keep in regular contact. But this might just be the rather flowery mode of letter writing at that time. A good sign is that Cecily kept his letter, which is still extant. Would she have done this if she felt peeved towards Richard? Maybe..Of course Cecily may well have replied to it....and there may have been regular correspondence between them which has not survived. It would have been rather cold of her to turn her back on Richard after his recent bereavements....
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Whatever the frequency of their correspondence, there's every reason to believe Richard squeezed in a visit to his mother at Berkhampsted on Tuesday 17 May 1485 (Public Records Office, Chancery 81/907/1071). He may have stayed a bit  longer, in fact; his next recorded appearance was Sunday the 22nd at Kenilworth (see BL ms Harleian 433, Vol. 1, p. 62).
> > >
> > > Unless she refused to see him? But rumour of *that* would have spread faster than lice in a Southwarke stew....
> > >
> > > Judy 
> > >  
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 4:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Carol
> > > Apologies for the mix up with the names but when I click reply to group it goes straight to my email which is why is said Kathryn not Elaine. Must remember not to do it again!
> > >
> > > Re: Baldwin's book - I have a copy here courtesy of the local library so if you want to any endnotes checking let me know.
> > >
> > > As regards Cecily not forgiving Richard, he makes the assumption on the premise that she omits his name in her will. But there were reasons this for this, chiefly political expediency, especially when one considers who was now reigning in Richard's stead. The reference he cites is Testamenta Vestusta, ii,(1826) pp422-3, by N H Nicolas. As you pointed out in another example he reinterprets a letter Richard sent to his mother, "And madam I heartily beseech you that I may often hear from you to my comfort" to imply that there had been a lack of contact between them.
> > >
> > > Snip>>>
> > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > >
> > > The citation given for Cecily's comments are Vergil (ed, Ellis)
> > > pp184-5.
> > >
> > > I don't think anyone is as hostile as Seward and his hatchet job although Hicks and Weir are bad. I'm somewhat surprised at Baldwin because he is connected to the Richard III Foundation and sits on the panel. He also assumes that Richard's disrupted early life explains his behaviour and actions in later life in a negative way.
> > >
> > > BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.  There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > >
> > > > > Elaine 
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 17:33:56
liz williams
Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory for being such a naughty girl?



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'

"Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!ààà I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > >
> > > ànow she was the King's mum
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?Ã’â¬aà I am amazed ....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > >
> > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà It must have been simplyÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 17:38:17
EileenB
Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory for being such a naughty girl?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
>
> "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> >  
> > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > >
> > > >  now she was the King's mum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?ÃÆ'‚  I am amazed ....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  It must have been simplyÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ dreadful.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ElaineÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 17:41:11
Judy Thomson
Or the mere fact her "dreams" had been fulfilled? Especially if she had worked as ruthlessly as we suspect she did. Sometimes when all your plotting and planning is over, there's almost a sense of "letdown." A goal, once achieved, can leave you feeling: "What now?" at least in the moment.

Remember the apocryphal story of Alexander the Great? That he sat down and cried when he believed he'd nothing left to conquer?

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory for being such a naughty girl?

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

 
Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'

"Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!ààà I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > >
> > > ànow she was the King's mum
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?Ã’â¬aà I am amazed ....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > >
> > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà It must have been simplyÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>






Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 17:48:53
Johanne Tournier
And because she knew where all the bodies were buried??

J



Who says medieval history is dull??!!



Johanne



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 1:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort





Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory for being such a naughty girl?

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'

"Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Â
> Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > >
> > > ÃÂ now she was the King's mum
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?Ã’â¬aàI am amazed ....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > >
> > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàmarvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàIt must have been simplyÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>







Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 17:48:59
liz williams
Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory for being such a naughty girl?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
>
> "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > à
> > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aà I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aànow she was the King's mum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà I am amazed ....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà It must have been simplyÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 17:52:43
Karen Clark
Or maybe just proud of her son. She'd waited a long time for him to come
home, initially hoping simply that he could reclaim his earldom. Whatever
her faults, she loved her son and I think, like any mother, she was entirely
entitled to.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
Beaufort






Or the mere fact her "dreams" had been fulfilled? Especially if she had
worked as ruthlessly as we suspect she did. Sometimes when all your plotting
and planning is over, there's almost a sense of "letdown." A goal, once
achieved, can leave you feeling: "What now?" at least in the moment.

Remember the apocryphal story of Alexander the Great? That he sat down and
cried when he believed he'd nothing left to conquer?

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...
<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> >
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
Beaufort



Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory
for being such a naughty girl?

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'

"Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her
fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at
which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Â
> Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful
music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets
that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for
the World.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net"
<mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ I'm sure she was
crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > >
> > > ÃÂ now she was the King's mum
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?Ã’â¬aàI am amazed ....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not
end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried
at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for
one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who
cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she
sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > >
> > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her
losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the
throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to
have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is
pitiful...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to
say here howÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàmarvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it
must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind,
particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against
Tudor).Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàIt must have been simplyÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
dreadful.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.
Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding
to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret
Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As
far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write
to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for
slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't
seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather
he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of
evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard)
stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a
Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but
most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion
to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville
once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that
she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she
couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why
it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a
matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone
recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from
a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>













Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 18:13:40
fayre rose
i believe she was actually the queen. but as a female, she had to hand the throne to her son. the cousin's war was still quite flammable. mag the nag's son won the battle with richard via his uncle jasper. h7's claim was via his mother and he sealed the deal with the claim of e4's daughter, elizabeth.
 
i believe this is the reason the e of y was basically a second class citizen in that royal household. momma pulled h7's puppet strings.
 
there is one other thing, that i have yet to see mentioned in any ricardian information that i have yet to read. it is with regards to mag's husband. Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, KG (1435  29 July 1504) was titular King of Mann, (source wikipedia). while king in title only, stanley's title may have saved him and mag the nag in 1483.
 
it is interesting to note the title king of mann was reduced to lord of mann with thomas's death which occured during the reign of h7.
 
i believe i have also seen mag sign her name as margaret R. R being short for regina/queen. was the R for being queen of england or queen of mann or both? this is something i've pondered.
 
margaret had power and she knew it from a very young age.
 
roslyn
 


--- On Sun, 9/23/12, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:


From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
To: "" <>
Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 10:11 AM



 



Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear

 now she was the King's mum

________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

 
Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
> Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> >
> > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> >
> > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).à It must have been simplyàdreadful.à
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > >
> > >
> > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. àThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > >
> > > > Elaineà
> > >
> > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > >
> > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > >
> > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > >
> > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>










Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 18:20:51
fayre rose
mag the nag was a gemini. meaning she had two personalities. one for public consumption and the other to be used as necessary.
she was very likely highly intelligent and would have sincerely enjoyed plots and intriques.

--- On Sun, 9/23/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:


From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
To:
Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 11:24 AM



 



Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> >
> >  now she was the King's mum
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> >  
> > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?à I am amazed ....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > >
> > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > >
> > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’â¬aà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’â¬aà It must have been simplyÃ’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > > ElaineÃ’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>








Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 18:21:00
liz williams
 I'm afraid i don't have much sympathy for either of them.   I can feel sorry for the young Margaret, being married off and getting pregnant at such a terribly young age, then being widowed so quickly,  but not for the adult.   I haven't read anything to make me have any sympathy for or empathy with her in later years.  As for Tudor, he was offered the chance to come back I believe, but rejected it (I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong!)  His dating his reign from the day before Bosworth and saying that Richard and his supporters were therefore traitors, was just contemptible.  As far as I'm concerned, that one act sums him up.
 
 


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:51
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Or maybe just proud of her son. She'd waited a long time for him to come
home, initially hoping simply that he could reclaim his earldom. Whatever
her faults, she loved her son and I think, like any mother, she was entirely
entitled to.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
Beaufort

Or the mere fact her "dreams" had been fulfilled? Especially if she had
worked as ruthlessly as we suspect she did. Sometimes when all your plotting
and planning is over, there's almost a sense of "letdown." A goal, once
achieved, can leave you feeling: "What now?" at least in the moment.

Remember the apocryphal story of Alexander the Great? That he sat down and
cried when he believed he'd nothing left to conquer?

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com
<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> >
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
Beaufort


Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory
for being such a naughty girl?

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'

"Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her
fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at
which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Â
> Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful
music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets
that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for
the World.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net"
<mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ I'm sure she was
crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > >
> > > ÃÂ now she was the King's mum
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?Ã’â¬aàI am amazed ....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not
end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried
at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for
one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > >
> > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who
cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she
sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > >
> > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her
losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the
throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to
have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is
pitiful...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to
say here howÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàmarvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it
must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind,
particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against
Tudor).Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàIt must have been simplyÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
dreadful.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.
Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding
to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret
Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As
far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write
to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for
slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't
seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather
he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of
evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard)
stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a
Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but
most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion
to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville
once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that
she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she
couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why
it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a
matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone
recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from
a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>










Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 18:24:40
liz williams
Interesting thought; of course as a woman she would have little chance at the throne for herself regardless of how legitimate the claim was (like Matilda of course).    I have often wondered how much was Tudor and how much was his mama and Morton pulling the strings
 
 

________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 18:13
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
i believe she was actually the queen. but as a female, she had to hand the throne to her son. the cousin's war was still quite flammable. mag the nag's son won the battle with richard via his uncle jasper. h7's claim was via his mother and he sealed the deal with the claim of e4's daughter, elizabeth.
 
i believe this is the reason the e of y was basically a second class citizen in that royal household. momma pulled h7's puppet strings.
 
there is one other thing, that i have yet to see mentioned in any ricardian information that i have yet to read. it is with regards to mag's husband. Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, KG (1435  29 July 1504) was titular King of Mann, (source wikipedia). while king in title only, stanley's title may have saved him and mag the nag in 1483.
 
it is interesting to note the title king of mann was reduced to lord of mann with thomas's death which occured during the reign of h7.
 
i believe i have also seen mag sign her name as margaret R. R being short for regina/queen. was the R for being queen of england or queen of mann or both? this is something i've pondered.
 
margaret had power and she knew it from a very young age.
 
roslyn
 

--- On Sun, 9/23/12, liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:

From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 10:11 AM

 

Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!    I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear

 now she was the King's mum

________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

 
Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret Beaufort actually cried?  I am amazed ....
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
> Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> >
> > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> >
> > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).à It must have been simplyàdreadful.à
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > >
> > >
> > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. àThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > >
> > > > Elaineà
> > >
> > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > >
> > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > >
> > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > >
> > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > >
> > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>








Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-23 18:26:01
Judy Thomson
People like Margaret Beaufort are usually too self-righteous to feel guilty over their actions, particularly when those actions have furthered their personal agenda. 

I've always been saddened by the fate of Richard's Book of Hours. It was already old (or at least pre-owned) when he got it. Very few of the original pages are even left intact within its binding. Where are all those pages now? Yes, no doubt a number have met with misadventure. But all? Scattered over the world, I should think them. The book was scavenged for illuminations and decoration. Maybe for other motifs, related to provenance. And now there's a project, if someone has the patience and fortitude - to see if individual collectors would step forth with what might be at least some of these missing pages. 

I myself own several 15th C. folios, but all had been long separated from their original books when I found them. Yet one, a fairly good-sized page, shows Saint Michael conquering the devil. The border decor suggests it is of French origin; I had it framed in a manner which suspends it between acid-free mats, with glass on both sides, and I protect it from light. Hundreds of thousands of such folios reside in museums and private collections.

What if...?

Not all that long ago, a collector bought a picture of a young woman, attributed to an unknown artist. His "gut" told him it looked like a Da Vinci. After years of persistence, it now appears he might be correct. Evidence strongly suggests this isolated picture once was part of a book; the rest of the book is now somewhere else (Prague? somewhere in eastern Europe, in any case), and the image is very likely that of Bianca, illegitimate daughter of Duke Ludovico Sforza of Milan, made on the occasion of her marriage. Check at WGBH-TV/Nova for more details. A fascinating "detective" story. The identification (if true) was a collaboration of scientists and people in the arts. Even the young woman's hair style figured in helping to date the picture.

Using the remaining pages of Richard's Book of Hours as templates, what if other collectors, with no worry of confiscation, were encouraged to step forward? There's every likelihood at least a few still survive....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory for being such a naughty girl?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
>
> "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > à
> > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aà I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aànow she was the King's mum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà I am amazed ....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà It must have been simplyÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-23 18:32:33
EileenB
Yes...Karen...Im sure Margaret loved every bone in his body....

And I think that maybe given time Richard would have allowed him to return to England. After all she must have been held in high regard by Richard as she carried Anne;s train at the coronation?!...she may well have given time talked him around. Richard was known for his leniency and generosity...in fact he was too forgiving....which helped contribute to his downfall.

As we all know the actual reality was that Tudor chose to invade England and usurp the crown from Richard, the rightful king...Tragic..

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Or maybe just proud of her son. She'd waited a long time for him to come
> home, initially hoping simply that he could reclaim his earldom. Whatever
> her faults, she loved her son and I think, like any mother, she was entirely
> entitled to.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
> Beaufort
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Or the mere fact her "dreams" had been fulfilled? Especially if she had
> worked as ruthlessly as we suspect she did. Sometimes when all your plotting
> and planning is over, there's almost a sense of "letdown." A goal, once
> achieved, can leave you feeling: "What now?" at least in the moment.
>
> Remember the apocryphal story of Alexander the Great? That he sat down and
> cried when he believed he'd nothing left to conquer?
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...
> <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
> Beaufort
>
>
>
> Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory
> for being such a naughty girl?
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
>
> "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her
> fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at
> which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful
> music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets
> that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for
> the World.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net"
> <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!   I'm sure she was
> crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > >
> > > >  now she was the King's mum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ I am amazed ....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not
> end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried
> at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for
> one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who
> cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she
> sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her
> losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the
> throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to
> have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is
> pitiful...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to
> say here howÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it
> must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind,
> particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against
> Tudor).ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ It must have been simplyÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> dreadful.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.
> ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ElaineÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding
> to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret
> Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
> Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As
> far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write
> to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for
> slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't
> seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather
> he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of
> evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard)
> stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a
> Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but
> most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
> Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion
> to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville
> once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that
> she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she
> couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why
> it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a
> matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone
> recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from
> a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-23 18:40:18
fayre rose
very interesting regarding richard's book and the missing pages. did the pages that are now gone have some clues..prayers to be said for this or that person? did mag the nag in her hair shirt just have to get rid of them? maggie was not to be trusted in the least.
 
always remember that h7's reign coinsided with the borgia pope. morton became a cardinal under alexander vi.
despotic pope, despotic cardindal, and despotic tudor reign.
 
do what ever you wanted folks. act pious in public and have your sins absolved with a generous tithe to the church. such an ideal climate for the tudors and company to fester in. smoldering evil.
 
no wonder shakespeare didn't touch it. he wrote about all the other kings, but not h7 that we are aware of...how could anyone write any thing with even a glint of truth with regards to the evil trio. mag, hank and john.
 


--- On Sun, 9/23/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To: "" <>
Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 1:25 PM



 



People like Margaret Beaufort are usually too self-righteous to feel guilty over their actions, particularly when those actions have furthered their personal agenda. 

I've always been saddened by the fate of Richard's Book of Hours. It was already old (or at least pre-owned) when he got it. Very few of the original pages are even left intact within its binding. Where are all those pages now? Yes, no doubt a number have met with misadventure. But all? Scattered over the world, I should think them. The book was scavenged for illuminations and decoration. Maybe for other motifs, related to provenance. And now there's a project, if someone has the patience and fortitude - to see if individual collectors would step forth with what might be at least some of these missing pages. 

I myself own several 15th C. folios, but all had been long separated from their original books when I found them. Yet one, a fairly good-sized page, shows Saint Michael conquering the devil. The border decor suggests it is of French origin; I had it framed in a manner which suspends it between acid-free mats, with glass on both sides, and I protect it from light. Hundreds of thousands of such folios reside in museums and private collections.

What if...?

Not all that long ago, a collector bought a picture of a young woman, attributed to an unknown artist. His "gut" told him it looked like a Da Vinci. After years of persistence, it now appears he might be correct. Evidence strongly suggests this isolated picture once was part of a book; the rest of the book is now somewhere else (Prague? somewhere in eastern Europe, in any case), and the image is very likely that of Bianca, illegitimate daughter of Duke Ludovico Sforza of Milan, made on the occasion of her marriage. Check at WGBH-TV/Nova for more details. A fascinating "detective" story. The identification (if true) was a collaboration of scientists and people in the arts. Even the young woman's hair style figured in helping to date the picture.

Using the remaining pages of Richard's Book of Hours as templates, what if other collectors, with no worry of confiscation, were encouraged to step forward? There's every likelihood at least a few still survive....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort


 
Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory for being such a naughty girl?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
>
> "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > à
> > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aàÒâ¬aà I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aànow she was the King's mum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà I am amazed ....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà It must have been simplyÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdreadful.Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>










Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-23 18:47:43
EileenB
I wonder if Margaret Beaufort and Cecily Neville ever came face to face after Bosworth?



--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> very interesting regarding richard's book and the missing pages. did the pages that are now gone have some clues..prayers to be said for this or that person? did mag the nag in her hair shirt just have to get rid of them? maggie was not to be trusted in the least.
>  
> always remember that h7's reign coinsided with the borgia pope. morton became a cardinal under alexander vi.
> despotic pope, despotic cardindal, and despotic tudor reign.
>  
> do what ever you wanted folks. act pious in public and have your sins absolved with a generous tithe to the church. such an ideal climate for the tudors and company to fester in. smoldering evil.
>  
> no wonder shakespeare didn't touch it. he wrote about all the other kings, but not h7 that we are aware of...how could anyone write any thing with even a glint of truth with regards to the evil trio. mag, hank and john.
>  
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/23/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To: "" <>
> Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 1:25 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> People like Margaret Beaufort are usually too self-righteous to feel guilty over their actions, particularly when those actions have furthered their personal agenda. 
>
> I've always been saddened by the fate of Richard's Book of Hours. It was already old (or at least pre-owned) when he got it. Very few of the original pages are even left intact within its binding. Where are all those pages now? Yes, no doubt a number have met with misadventure. But all? Scattered over the world, I should think them. The book was scavenged for illuminations and decoration. Maybe for other motifs, related to provenance. And now there's a project, if someone has the patience and fortitude - to see if individual collectors would step forth with what might be at least some of these missing pages. 
>
> I myself own several 15th C. folios, but all had been long separated from their original books when I found them. Yet one, a fairly good-sized page, shows Saint Michael conquering the devil. The border decor suggests it is of French origin; I had it framed in a manner which suspends it between acid-free mats, with glass on both sides, and I protect it from light. Hundreds of thousands of such folios reside in museums and private collections.
>
> What if...?
>
> Not all that long ago, a collector bought a picture of a young woman, attributed to an unknown artist. His "gut" told him it looked like a Da Vinci. After years of persistence, it now appears he might be correct. Evidence strongly suggests this isolated picture once was part of a book; the rest of the book is now somewhere else (Prague? somewhere in eastern Europe, in any case), and the image is very likely that of Bianca, illegitimate daughter of Duke Ludovico Sforza of Milan, made on the occasion of her marriage. Check at WGBH-TV/Nova for more details. A fascinating "detective" story. The identification (if true) was a collaboration of scientists and people in the arts. Even the young woman's hair style figured in helping to date the picture.
>
> Using the remaining pages of Richard's Book of Hours as templates, what if other collectors, with no worry of confiscation, were encouraged to step forward? There's every likelihood at least a few still survive....
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
>  
> Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory for being such a naughty girl?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> >  
> > Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
> >
> > "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for the World.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚  I'm sure she was crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ now she was the King's mum
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  I am amazed ....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is pitiful...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to say here howÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  It must have been simplyÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ dreadful.ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired. ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ElaineÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 19:50:20
mariewalsh2003
Hi Elaine,

There is no point looking on the IGI for 15th century marriages because parish registers didn't start until the 1530s. The main evidence for Mistress Shore's marriage to Thomas Lynom/Lyneham is in her parents' wills.

1) Her father's will (written September 1487):
"Also I bequeth to Thomas Lyneham gentilman xx s. to Elizabeth lineham my doughter a bed of Arras with the Silour testour and cortayns a stayned cloth of mary magdalene and martha Also I bequeth to Julyan Lyneham xl s." There is more, but that's the main bit. Lynom was also a witness and named as one of the overseers.
Incidentally, Julian was always a girl's name in 15th century England so far as I can make out.

2) Her mother's will (written December 1488):
"And of this my Laste will and testament I make and ordeigne my sonnes Thomas Lyneham sir John Lamberd John Lamberd and Robert Lambert myne Executours".

Marie


--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> Elaine
>
> ---

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-23 23:41:41
phaecilia
Hello Carol,

I've read a biography of Margaret of York by Christine Weightman. Reading it strengthened my feeling that the more I can learn about 15th c. Anglo-Burgundian relations, the better I can understand what went on in 15th c. England. It made me feel that it's possible Richard sent his nephews to Margaret, duchess of Burgundy for safekeeping.

My copy is a hardbound with good illustrations. But it isn't subtitled "diabolical duchess." Maybe the author has updated it and tried to make it less scholarly and more appealing to general readers. If this is a paperback it might not have the illustrations.

Have you tried American Book Exchange? I bought my copy second hand from them several years ago. They might still have illustrated copies for sale.

Marion






--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Judy Thomson wrote:
> >
> > In re: Margaret d'York, I believe Tudor called her "that diabolical duchess," and she may have liked that right well.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oho! Thank you! Your response led me to this biography:
>
> "Margaret of York: The Diabolical Duchess" by Christine Weightman
>
> http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6097523-margaret-of-york
>
> Has anyone read it and is it any good?
>
> Carol
>

Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 00:17:03
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.

Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>  
> Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....

Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort

2012-09-24 00:40:33
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Hey, I'll give her every scrap of credit for that--Henry couldn't have been an easy love, even if you were his mother.

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Or maybe just proud of her son. She'd waited a long time for him to come
> home, initially hoping simply that he could reclaim his earldom. Whatever
> her faults, she loved her son and I think, like any mother, she was entirely
> entitled to.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
> Beaufort
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Or the mere fact her "dreams" had been fulfilled? Especially if she had
> worked as ruthlessly as we suspect she did. Sometimes when all your plotting
> and planning is over, there's almost a sense of "letdown." A goal, once
> achieved, can leave you feeling: "What now?" at least in the moment.
>
> Remember the apocryphal story of Alexander the Great? That he sat down and
> cried when he believed he'd nothing left to conquer?
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...
> <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
> Beaufort
>
>
>
> Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory
> for being such a naughty girl?
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
>
> "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her
> fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at
> which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful
> music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets
> that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for
> the World.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net"
> <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!   I'm sure she was
> crying for joy at the thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > >
> > > >  now she was the King's mum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the country.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually cried?ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ I am amazed ....
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did not
> end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she cried
> at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for
> one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it contains..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example who
> cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she
> sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her
> losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the
> throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to
> have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is
> pitiful...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like to
> say here howÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it
> must have been for those of Richard's friends and family who were left behind,
> particularly the women who couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against
> Tudor).ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ It must have been simplyÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> dreadful.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.
> ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ There are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ElaineÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm responding
> to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret
> Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
> Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As
> far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will write
> to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her son for
> slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin doesn't
> seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy (or rather
> he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only shred of
> evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by Richard)
> stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on a
> Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but
> most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
> Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion
> to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily Neville
> once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would show that
> she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of course, why she
> couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor regime and why
> it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's merely a
> matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does anyone
> recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have come from
> a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't invent it!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 00:48:39
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Ooh, that's Mission No. 1 when I get my time machine working! I'd have liked to see Mag the Nag molar-free and with a permanent bowlegged wobble from being slapped so hard her eyes spun around in her skull like the pea in the coach's whistle.

Of course, I would have an ice pack available for Cecily Neville in case she hurt her hand.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder if Margaret Beaufort and Cecily Neville ever came face to face after Bosworth?

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-24 01:38:34
justcarol67
--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Carol,
>
> I've read a biography of Margaret of York by Christine Weightman. Reading it strengthened my feeling that the more I can learn about 15th c. Anglo-Burgundian relations, the better I can understand what went on in 15th c. England. It made me feel that it's possible Richard sent his nephews to Margaret, duchess of Burgundy for safekeeping.
>
> My copy is a hardbound with good illustrations. But it isn't subtitled "diabolical duchess." Maybe the author has updated it and tried to make it less scholarly and more appealing to general readers. If this is a paperback it might not have the illustrations.
>
> Have you tried American Book Exchange? I bought my copy second hand from them several years ago. They might still have illustrated copies for sale.


Carol responds:

Hi, Marion. That sounds like the book I was talking about with, as you suggest, a new subtitle to attract nonspecialist readers. I bought "The Diabolical Duchess" on Kindle and am now up to about 1477 (though Weightman doesn't always present her information in chronological order).

The version I have starts out with a novelistic preface where she tries to get into Margaret's mind on her wedding day (not a promising beginning) then adopts a more scholarly but still readable style to discuss Margaret's wedding and the preceding negotiations. We don't even get to Margaret's birth and background until chapter 3. My impression so far is that she goes into way too much detail about ceremonies and palaces and more detail than I'm interested in (but I can't speak for other readers) about her counselors and so forth. I's prefer a strict chronological telling of Margaret's life. Otherwise, my quibbles are minor (things like calling Edward "her brother" or speaking of "her two brothers" as if Richard didn't exist. So far, though, she doesn't seem to treat him with any antagonism. Interesting how objectively she presents Charles's ruthlessness, which far exceeds Richard's at any time in his life. The book does have illustrations but on my Kindle Touch they're in black and white.

One thing I did wonder about is how quickly she dismisses the story of Cecily with Richard and George at the sacking of Ludlow. I always wondered where Margaret was at that time. Maybe her absence from the stories is Weightman's unstated reason for rejecting it.

Anyway, does that sound like the same book? I'll come back with a more detailed assessment later (unless someone is worried about "spoilers" in a biography!) and a clearer idea of whether I think it's worth reading.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 01:54:17
justcarol67
"mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> Ooh, that's Mission No. 1 when I get my time machine working! I'd have liked to see Mag the Nag molar-free and with a permanent bowlegged wobble from being slapped so hard her eyes spun around in her skull like the pea in the coach's whistle.
>
> Of course, I would have an ice pack available for Cecily Neville in case she hurt her hand.

Carol responds:

Are you familiar with the Henry VII Shape-shifter? Admittedly, it's for messing up Henry's face rather than his mother's, but it's a good way to get the frustration out when you're feeling annoyed with the Tudors. It would probably make Margaret feel worse to see Henry's face rearranged than to have her own teeth knocked out.

http://www.r3.org/alexwarp/henry7.html

Carol, wondering if Margaret loved Henry more when they were separated than when they were together

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 02:13:02
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Righteous! Take that, ya little no-ethics-havin', battle-cowardizin', country-destabilizin', good-monarch-slaughterin', mama-whupped opportunistic tiny-brained lemon-lipped weasel!

Thank you for that link, Carol. I am enjoying it very much, but if they ever rebuild it, it could use about 150% more fist.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > Ooh, that's Mission No. 1 when I get my time machine working! I'd have liked to see Mag the Nag molar-free and with a permanent bowlegged wobble from being slapped so hard her eyes spun around in her skull like the pea in the coach's whistle.
> >
> > Of course, I would have an ice pack available for Cecily Neville in case she hurt her hand.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Are you familiar with the Henry VII Shape-shifter? Admittedly, it's for messing up Henry's face rather than his mother's, but it's a good way to get the frustration out when you're feeling annoyed with the Tudors. It would probably make Margaret feel worse to see Henry's face rearranged than to have her own teeth knocked out.
>
> http://www.r3.org/alexwarp/henry7.html
>
> Carol, wondering if Margaret loved Henry more when they were separated than when they were together
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 02:25:15
Karen Clark
Just found this reference in Cecily's will:

"Also I bequeith to my lady the kinges moder a portuos with claspes of gold
covered with blacke cloth of golde"

This might be the book in question. In which case, it was left to Margaret
Beaufort, not stolen by anyone.

Karen


From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:47:41 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






I wonder if Margaret Beaufort and Cecily Neville ever came face to face
after Bosworth?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> very interesting regarding richard's book and the missing pages. did the pages
that are now gone have some clues..prayers to be said for this or that person?
did mag the nag in her hair shirt just have to get rid of them? maggie was not
to be trusted in the least.
> Â
> always remember that h7's reign coinsided with the borgia pope. morton became
a cardinal under alexander vi.
> despotic pope, despotic cardindal, and despotic tudor reign.
> Â
> do what ever you wanted folks. act pious in public and have your sins absolved
with a generous tithe to the church. such an ideal climate for the tudors and
company to fester in. smoldering evil.
> Â
> no wonder shakespeare didn't touch it. he wrote about all the other kings, but
not h7 that we are aware of...how could anyone write any thing with even a glint
of truth with regards to the evil trio. mag, hank and john.
> Â
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/23/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 1:25 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> People like Margaret Beaufort are usually too self-righteous to feel guilty
over their actions, particularly when those actions have furthered their
personal agenda.Â
>
> I've always been saddened by the fate of Richard's Book of Hours. It was
already old (or at least pre-owned) when he got it. Very few of the original
pages are even left intact within its binding. Where are all those pages now?
Yes, no doubt a number have met with misadventure. But all? Scattered over the
world, I should think them. The book was scavenged for illuminations and
decoration. Maybe for other motifs, related to provenance. And now there's a
project, if someone has the patience and fortitude - to see if individual
collectors would step forth with what might be at least some of these missing
pages.Â
>
> I myself own several 15th C. folios, but all had been long separated from
their original books when I found them. Yet one, a fairly good-sized page, shows
Saint Michael conquering the devil. The border decor suggests it is of French
origin; I had it framed in a manner which suspends it between acid-free mats,
with glass on both sides, and I protect it from light. Hundreds of thousands of
such folios reside in museums and private collections.
>
> What if...?
>
> Not all that long ago, a collector bought a picture of a young woman,
attributed to an unknown artist. His "gut" told him it looked like a Da Vinci.
After years of persistence, it now appears he might be correct. Evidence
strongly suggests this isolated picture once was part of a book; the rest of the
book is now somewhere else (Prague? somewhere in eastern Europe, in any case),
and the image is very likely that of Bianca, illegitimate daughter of Duke
Ludovico Sforza of Milan, made on the occasion of her marriage. Check at
WGBH-TV/Nova for more details. A fascinating "detective" story. The
identification (if true) was a collaboration of scientists and people in the
arts. Even the young woman's hair style figured in helping to date the picture.
>
> Using the remaining pages of Richard's Book of Hours as templates, what if
other collectors, with no worry of confiscation, were encouraged to step
forward? There's every likelihood at least a few still survive....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Â
> Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave
her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory
for being such a naughty girl?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
> >
> > "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her
fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at
which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful
music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets
that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for
the World.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net"
<mcjohn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚ I'm sure she was crying for joy at the
thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ now she was the King's mum
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
Beaufort
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the
country.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually
cried?ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ I am amazed ....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did
not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she
cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for
one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it
contains..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example
who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she
sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her
losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the
throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to
have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is
pitiful...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like
to say here howÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€
'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of
Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who
couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).ÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€
'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ It
must have been simplyÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€
'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
dreadful.ÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€
'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€
'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.
ÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€
'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ There
are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ElaineÃÆ'Æ'Ãâ€
'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm
responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret
Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As
far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will
write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her
son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin
doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy
(or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only
shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by
Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on
a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but
most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion
to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily
Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would
show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of
course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor
regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's
merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does
anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have
come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't
invent it!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 07:47:07
fayre rose
one would need to see or examine richard's book to see if it possibly matched the description of the book cecily willed to margaret.
i think one also needs to factor in where cecily resided in her final years, and was the book a possible gift from margaret to cecily and she was returning it.
overt piety was often a disguise for the less than pious then as it is now.
 
cecily's will can be found on susan higganbotham's website.
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/the-will-of-cecily-duchess-of-york/
 
she also gave her grandchildren bokes and porteous.
 
i would not say the h7 stole richard's books. to the victor goes the spoils. ergo, whatever richard possessed, the momma's boy got by conquest.
 
bequeathing something to margaret could very well have been a way to ensure her granddaughter e of y did not "pay a price" for the error of omission from grandma. or it could also have been a way to ensure cecily would be buried with her husband. she seems concerned there could be reason to doubt that might happen. she certainly took steps to try to make it happen.
 
i put nothing beyond the beaufort-tudor reign. even the ability for one to rest in peace.

--- On Sun, 9/23/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 9:24 PM



 



Just found this reference in Cecily's will:

"Also I bequeith to my lady the kinges moder a portuos with claspes of gold
covered with blacke cloth of golde"

This might be the book in question. In which case, it was left to Margaret
Beaufort, not stolen by anyone.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:47:41 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

I wonder if Margaret Beaufort and Cecily Neville ever came face to face
after Bosworth?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> very interesting regarding richard's book and the missing pages. did the pages
that are now gone have some clues..prayers to be said for this or that person?
did mag the nag in her hair shirt just have to get rid of them? maggie was not
to be trusted in the least.
> Â
> always remember that h7's reign coinsided with the borgia pope. morton became
a cardinal under alexander vi.
> despotic pope, despotic cardindal, and despotic tudor reign.
> Â
> do what ever you wanted folks. act pious in public and have your sins absolved
with a generous tithe to the church. such an ideal climate for the tudors and
company to fester in. smoldering evil.
> Â
> no wonder shakespeare didn't touch it. he wrote about all the other kings, but
not h7 that we are aware of...how could anyone write any thing with even a glint
of truth with regards to the evil trio. mag, hank and john.
> Â
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/23/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 1:25 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> People like Margaret Beaufort are usually too self-righteous to feel guilty
over their actions, particularly when those actions have furthered their
personal agenda.Â
>
> I've always been saddened by the fate of Richard's Book of Hours. It was
already old (or at least pre-owned) when he got it. Very few of the original
pages are even left intact within its binding. Where are all those pages now?
Yes, no doubt a number have met with misadventure. But all? Scattered over the
world, I should think them. The book was scavenged for illuminations and
decoration. Maybe for other motifs, related to provenance. And now there's a
project, if someone has the patience and fortitude - to see if individual
collectors would step forth with what might be at least some of these missing
pages.Â
>
> I myself own several 15th C. folios, but all had been long separated from
their original books when I found them. Yet one, a fairly good-sized page, shows
Saint Michael conquering the devil. The border decor suggests it is of French
origin; I had it framed in a manner which suspends it between acid-free mats,
with glass on both sides, and I protect it from light. Hundreds of thousands of
such folios reside in museums and private collections.
>
> What if...?
>
> Not all that long ago, a collector bought a picture of a young woman,
attributed to an unknown artist. His "gut" told him it looked like a Da Vinci.
After years of persistence, it now appears he might be correct. Evidence
strongly suggests this isolated picture once was part of a book; the rest of the
book is now somewhere else (Prague? somewhere in eastern Europe, in any case),
and the image is very likely that of Bianca, illegitimate daughter of Duke
Ludovico Sforza of Milan, made on the occasion of her marriage. Check at
WGBH-TV/Nova for more details. A fascinating "detective" story. The
identification (if true) was a collaboration of scientists and people in the
arts. Even the young woman's hair style figured in helping to date the picture.
>
> Using the remaining pages of Richard's Book of Hours as templates, what if
other collectors, with no worry of confiscation, were encouraged to step
forward? There's every likelihood at least a few still survive....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Â
> Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave
her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory
for being such a naughty girl?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
> >
> > "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her
fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at
which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃâÃÂ
> > > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful
music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets
that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for
the World.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net"
<mcjohn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ
ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàI'm sure she was crying for joy at the
thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ãâànow she was the King's mum
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
Beaufort
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ
> > > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the
country.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually
cried?ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàI am amazed ....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ
> > > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did
not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she
cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for
one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it
contains..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example
who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she
sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her
losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the
throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to
have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is
pitiful...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like
to say here howÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ
'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ
marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of
Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who
couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ
'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàIt
must have been simplyÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ
'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ
dreadful.ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ
'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ
'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.
ÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ
'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâàThere
are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ElaineÃÆ'Ã'Ãâ
'ÃÆ'ââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¡ÃÆ'Ã'âââ¬Å¡ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm
responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret
Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As
far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will
write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her
son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin
doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy
(or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only
shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by
Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on
a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but
most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion
to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily
Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would
show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of
course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor
regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's
merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does
anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have
come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't
invent it!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>










Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 08:13:12
Karen Clark
Yes, I have a copy of the will, and the article by Alison Spedding. (Also
courtesy of Susan.) Spedding feels there was little ill feeling between
Cecily and Margaret. Women often maintained relationships, with sisters and
others, despite their husbands or sons being in dire conflict. If the book
mentioned was Richard's, it could point to a connection between the women
that wasn't predicated on Margaret being the mother-in-law from hell and
Cecily trying to placate her. I haven't seen Richard's Book of Hours, nor
can I find a picture on the net that shows the over. Still, it's worth
considering.

Was there a wholesale ransacking of Richard's belongings by the incoming
king? Or were they distributed according to his will? I'm ignorant of
whether such a thing has been found or not. Maybe Richard left his Book of
Hours to Cecily, rather than it being appropriated in another way by Henry
VII or his mother. Considering what happened in 1471/2, when the will of the
Earl of Warwick was overturned, his widow disinherited, stripped of even her
own properties and title, her jointure and her dower, and declared dead by
Act of Parliament, ransacking the belongings of the dead wouldn't be
something unique to Henry VII's reign.

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






one would need to see or examine richard's book to see if it possibly
matched the description of the book cecily willed to margaret.
i think one also needs to factor in where cecily resided in her final years,
and was the book a possible gift from margaret to cecily and she was
returning it.
overt piety was often a disguise for the less than pious then as it is now.

cecily's will can be found on susan higganbotham's website.
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/the-will-of-cecily-duchess-of-yo
rk/

she also gave her grandchildren bokes and porteous.

i would not say the h7 stole richard's books. to the victor goes the spoils.
ergo, whatever richard possessed, the momma's boy got by conquest.

bequeathing something to margaret could very well have been a way to ensure
her granddaughter e of y did not "pay a price" for the error of omission
from grandma. or it could also have been a way to ensure cecily would be
buried with her husband. she seems concerned there could be reason to doubt
that might happen. she certainly took steps to try to make it happen.

i put nothing beyond the beaufort-tudor reign. even the ability for one to
rest in peace.

--- On Sun, 9/23/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 9:24 PM



Just found this reference in Cecily's will:

"Also I bequeith to my lady the kinges moder a portuos with claspes of gold
covered with blacke cloth of golde"

This might be the book in question. In which case, it was left to Margaret
Beaufort, not stolen by anyone.

Karen






Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 12:06:37
EileenB
Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway

The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....

The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
Eileen

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
>
> Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >  
> > Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>

Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 12:19:50
EileenB
We also have to take into consideration that Cecily's grandson, Edward of Warwick, was in Tudor's hands. And we all know the eventual outcome of that. A kindness to Cecily that she never lived to see that and his sister's fate either.....

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway
>
> The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....
>
> The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
> >
> > Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >  
> > > Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
> >
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 12:36:24
Johanne Tournier
Hi, Karen 

What exactly is a portuos? Is that a word that would have meant Book of Hours? How likely is it that the book referred to in Cecily's will is Richard's Book of Hours? If, from what I have read, Richard had the Book with him at Bosworth, he presumably would have left it in his tent. So, who would have had possession of his things after the Battle? If Cecily got it, presumably it would have been one of the Yorkists who would have taken possession of it and transferred it to her. Otherwise, the camp probably would have been seized by the victors  and, as someone noted, to the victor go the spoils. In which case, I think it is unlikely that Henry or his henchmen would have given the Book of Hours to Cecily. On the other hand, we do indubitably have an instance in Cecily's will of a rather special book being willed by her to the mother of Henry VII. That certainly bespeaks of an interesting internal psychological dynamic going on between the two. Is it absolutely certain that Cecily was referring to Margaret Beaufort, and not, say, Henry VI's mother? (I don't know anything about the latter lady, and of course, she may have been deceased for years. It's just a thought.)



Take care,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~













From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book





Just found this reference in Cecily's will:

"Also I bequeith to my lady the kinges moder a portuos with claspes of gold
covered with blacke cloth of golde"

This might be the book in question. In which case, it was left to Margaret
Beaufort, not stolen by anyone.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Reply-To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:47:41 -0000
To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

I wonder if Margaret Beaufort and Cecily Neville ever came face to face
after Bosworth?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> very interesting regarding richard's book and the missing pages. did the pages
that are now gone have some clues..prayers to be said for this or that person?
did mag the nag in her hair shirt just have to get rid of them? maggie was not
to be trusted in the least.
> Â
> always remember that h7's reign coinsided with the borgia pope. morton became
a cardinal under alexander vi.
> despotic pope, despotic cardindal, and despotic tudor reign.
> Â
> do what ever you wanted folks. act pious in public and have your sins absolved
with a generous tithe to the church. such an ideal climate for the tudors and
company to fester in. smoldering evil.
> Â
> no wonder shakespeare didn't touch it. he wrote about all the other kings, but
not h7 that we are aware of...how could anyone write any thing with even a glint
of truth with regards to the evil trio. mag, hank and john.
> Â
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/23/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book
> To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
< <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 1:25 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> People like Margaret Beaufort are usually too self-righteous to feel guilty
over their actions, particularly when those actions have furthered their
personal agenda.Â
>
> I've always been saddened by the fate of Richard's Book of Hours. It was
already old (or at least pre-owned) when he got it. Very few of the original
pages are even left intact within its binding. Where are all those pages now?
Yes, no doubt a number have met with misadventure. But all? Scattered over the
world, I should think them. The book was scavenged for illuminations and
decoration. Maybe for other motifs, related to provenance. And now there's a
project, if someone has the patience and fortitude - to see if individual
collectors would step forth with what might be at least some of these missing
pages.Â
>
> I myself own several 15th C. folios, but all had been long separated from
their original books when I found them. Yet one, a fairly good-sized page, shows
Saint Michael conquering the devil. The border decor suggests it is of French
origin; I had it framed in a manner which suspends it between acid-free mats,
with glass on both sides, and I protect it from light. Hundreds of thousands of
such folios reside in museums and private collections.
>
> What if...?
>
> Not all that long ago, a collector bought a picture of a young woman,
attributed to an unknown artist. His "gut" told him it looked like a Da Vinci.
After years of persistence, it now appears he might be correct. Evidence
strongly suggests this isolated picture once was part of a book; the rest of the
book is now somewhere else (Prague? somewhere in eastern Europe, in any case),
and the image is very likely that of Bianca, illegitimate daughter of Duke
Ludovico Sforza of Milan, made on the occasion of her marriage. Check at
WGBH-TV/Nova for more details. A fascinating "detective" story. The
identification (if true) was a collaboration of scientists and people in the
arts. Even the young woman's hair style figured in helping to date the picture.
>
> Using the remaining pages of Richard's Book of Hours as templates, what if
other collectors, with no worry of confiscation, were encouraged to step
forward? There's every likelihood at least a few still survive....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Â
> Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave
her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory
for being such a naughty girl?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
> >
> > "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her
fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at
which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful
music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering pets
that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep for
the World.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net"
<mcjohn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàI'm sure she was crying for joy at the
thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aànow she was the King's mum
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
Beaufort
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the
country.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually
cried?Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàI am amazed ....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did
not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that she
cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for
one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it
contains..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example
who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses she
sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my heroine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her
losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the
throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe, to
have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is
pitiful...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like
to say here howÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of
Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women who
couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàIt
must have been simplyÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
dreadful.Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.
Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThere
are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm
responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret
Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore. As
far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will
write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven her
son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin
doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's legitimacy
(or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the only
shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not written by
Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on
a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it), but
most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind devotion
to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily
Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would
show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of
course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the Tudor
regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law. That's
merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But does
anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have
come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I didn't
invent it!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 12:45:23
Jonathan Evans
I think it's highly plausible that the Book of Hours would have travelled with Richard.  Therefore it being acquired immediately after Bosworth seems more likely than it coming into Margaret Beaufort's hands by other means.

As for the relationship between Margaret and Cecily, it's difficult to use gifts between them to gauge the tenor of this.  Such things would surely have been transactional.  They may have loathed each other.  They may, equally, have succeeded in remaining cordial.

I remember an English Shakespeare Company production of 'Coriolanus' back in the late eighties, which cut the plays final lines eulogising the title character, instead ending on an unnamed lord saying "Let's make the best of it."  I rather think that's how many people - women especially - would have had to behave in the late 15th century.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 September 2012, 12:19
Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory


 
We also have to take into consideration that Cecily's grandson, Edward of Warwick, was in Tudor's hands. And we all know the eventual outcome of that. A kindness to Cecily that she never lived to see that and his sister's fate either.....

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway
>
> The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....
>
> The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
> >
> > Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >  
> > > Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
> >
>




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 13:00:35
EileenB
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
>r. Considering what happened in 1471/2, when the will of the
> Earl of Warwick was overturned, his widow disinherited, stripped of even her
> own properties and title, her jointure and her dower, and declared dead by
> Act of Parliament, ransacking the belongings of the dead wouldn't be
> something unique to Henry VII's reign.
>
> Karen

Karen..I agree with you on that totally....It was vile and disgraceful behaviour. I lay the blame of this on King Edward's shoulders. Also his treatment and attitude towards Warwick which led to Warwick rebellion against him. In fact I lay everything that happened on his shoulders. I always feel it was tragic that these two men could not get their acts together as I think united they would have been formidable and magnificent.

How old was Richard at the time this treatment of the Countess of Warwick was going on? 18ish? He certainly had little choice than to go along with it or Clarence and Isobel would have copped the lot! I would like to believe what I have read that the Countess was later given a home at Middleham or if this is a tad romantic at least helped by her daughter and son-in-law. Richard acted with kindness to other widows such as Hastings and Buckingham's (who had behaved far worse in a personal sense to Richard having plotted his death) widows so it would have been likely he would have done the same for his mother-in-law.
The details of what happened to Warwick's widow vary as to which version you read and are sketchy which is a shame as I really wanted to know what became of her after she left Beauleiu.
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 23:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
> one would need to see or examine richard's book to see if it possibly
> matched the description of the book cecily willed to margaret.
> i think one also needs to factor in where cecily resided in her final years,
> and was the book a possible gift from margaret to cecily and she was
> returning it.
> overt piety was often a disguise for the less than pious then as it is now.
>
> cecily's will can be found on susan higganbotham's website.
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/the-will-of-cecily-duchess-of-yo
> rk/
>
> she also gave her grandchildren bokes and porteous.
>
> i would not say the h7 stole richard's books. to the victor goes the spoils.
> ergo, whatever richard possessed, the momma's boy got by conquest.
>
> bequeathing something to margaret could very well have been a way to ensure
> her granddaughter e of y did not "pay a price" for the error of omission
> from grandma. or it could also have been a way to ensure cecily would be
> buried with her husband. she seems concerned there could be reason to doubt
> that might happen. she certainly took steps to try to make it happen.
>
> i put nothing beyond the beaufort-tudor reign. even the ability for one to
> rest in peace.
>
> --- On Sun, 9/23/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 9:24 PM
>
>
>
> Just found this reference in Cecily's will:
>
> "Also I bequeith to my lady the kinges moder a portuos with claspes of gold
> covered with blacke cloth of golde"
>
> This might be the book in question. In which case, it was left to Margaret
> Beaufort, not stolen by anyone.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 14:28:55
Karen Clark
Johanne

It was definitely Margaret Beaufort Cecily was referring to. Katherine de
Valois (Henry VI's mother and Henry VII's grandmother) had been dead for
some considerable time. I doubt if Cecily would have referred to her as 'the
king's mother', anyway. Spedding defines 'portuous' as "A breviary or daily
service book" which fits. Whether it was Richard's book, I have no idea. His
Book of Hours may well have been seized, as you suggest, but we just don't
know. I can't imagine the contents of that tent being treated as common
spoils of war, though, especially if Richard left a will. If a report of
such looting turns up in a reliable source, then we might have a better idea
what happened to the book. Whether their piety was real, exaggerated or
wholly counterfeit, Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort did have that
reputation in common.

Cheers
Karen


From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:36:21 -0300
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Hi, Karen 

What exactly is a portuos? Is that a word that would have meant Book of
Hours? How likely is it that the book referred to in Cecily's will is
Richard's Book of Hours? If, from what I have read, Richard had the Book
with him at Bosworth, he presumably would have left it in his tent. So, who
would have had possession of his things after the Battle? If Cecily got it,
presumably it would have been one of the Yorkists who would have taken
possession of it and transferred it to her. Otherwise, the camp probably
would have been seized by the victors  and, as someone noted, to the
victor go the spoils. In which case, I think it is unlikely that Henry or
his henchmen would have given the Book of Hours to Cecily. On the other
hand, we do indubitably have an instance in Cecily's will of a rather
special book being willed by her to the mother of Henry VII. That certainly
bespeaks of an interesting internal psychological dynamic going on between
the two. Is it absolutely certain that Cecily was referring to Margaret
Beaufort, and not, say, Henry VI's mother? (I don't know anything about the
latter lady, and of course, she may have been deceased for years. It's just
a thought.)

Take care,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:25 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Just found this reference in Cecily's will:

"Also I bequeith to my lady the kinges moder a portuos with claspes of gold
covered with blacke cloth of golde"

This might be the book in question. In which case, it was left to Margaret
Beaufort, not stolen by anyone.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:47:41 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

I wonder if Margaret Beaufort and Cecily Neville ever came face to face
after Bosworth?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> very interesting regarding richard's book and the missing pages. did the pages
that are now gone have some clues..prayers to be said for this or that
person?
did mag the nag in her hair shirt just have to get rid of them? maggie was
not
to be trusted in the least.
> Â
> always remember that h7's reign coinsided with the borgia pope. morton became
a cardinal under alexander vi.
> despotic pope, despotic cardindal, and despotic tudor reign.
> Â
> do what ever you wanted folks. act pious in public and have your sins absolved
with a generous tithe to the church. such an ideal climate for the tudors
and
company to fester in. smoldering evil.
> Â
> no wonder shakespeare didn't touch it. he wrote about all the other kings, but
not h7 that we are aware of...how could anyone write any thing with even a
glint
of truth with regards to the evil trio. mag, hank and john.
> Â
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/23/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Received: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 1:25 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> People like Margaret Beaufort are usually too self-righteous to feel guilty
over their actions, particularly when those actions have furthered their
personal agenda.Â
>
> I've always been saddened by the fate of Richard's Book of Hours. It was
already old (or at least pre-owned) when he got it. Very few of the original
pages are even left intact within its binding. Where are all those pages
now?
Yes, no doubt a number have met with misadventure. But all? Scattered over
the
world, I should think them. The book was scavenged for illuminations and
decoration. Maybe for other motifs, related to provenance. And now there's a
project, if someone has the patience and fortitude - to see if individual
collectors would step forth with what might be at least some of these
missing
pages.Â
>
> I myself own several 15th C. folios, but all had been long separated from
their original books when I found them. Yet one, a fairly good-sized page,
shows
Saint Michael conquering the devil. The border decor suggests it is of
French
origin; I had it framed in a manner which suspends it between acid-free
mats,
with glass on both sides, and I protect it from light. Hundreds of thousands
of
such folios reside in museums and private collections.
>
> What if...?
>
> Not all that long ago, a collector bought a picture of a young woman,
attributed to an unknown artist. His "gut" told him it looked like a Da
Vinci.
After years of persistence, it now appears he might be correct. Evidence
strongly suggests this isolated picture once was part of a book; the rest of
the
book is now somewhere else (Prague? somewhere in eastern Europe, in any
case),
and the image is very likely that of Bianca, illegitimate daughter of Duke
Ludovico Sforza of Milan, made on the occasion of her marriage. Check at
WGBH-TV/Nova for more details. A fascinating "detective" story. The
identification (if true) was a collaboration of scientists and people in the
arts. Even the young woman's hair style figured in helping to date the
picture.
>
> Using the remaining pages of Richard's Book of Hours as templates, what if
other collectors, with no worry of confiscation, were encouraged to step
forward? There's every likelihood at least a few still survive....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>
>
> Â
> Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave
her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps it was the thought of all the years she'd have to spend in Purgatory
for being such a naughty girl?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:20
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Eureka...I have found it...Elizabeth Jenkins 'The Princes in the Tower'
> >
> > "Bishop Fisher who became her confessor commented, in astonishment, at her
fits of weeping. She wept at her son's coronation and at other ceremonies at
which she would have been expected to show lively rejoicing"
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't imagine her being a pet kind of person to be honest
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 16:24
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Lol..maybe she was a Piscean...they weep at the drop of a hat. Beautiful
music/scenery/old photos (this would not apply in her case)/ remembering
pets
that have popped their cloggs etc., etc., You name it...Pisceans can weep
for
the World.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net"
<mcjohn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Man, I am gonna own EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD!"
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I hit send before I wrote anything!Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàI'm sure she was crying for joy at
the
thought of the all jewels she could wear
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aànow she was the King's mum
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 1:27
> > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a
Beaufort
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > Possibly at what she knew she'd had a hand in foisting off on the
country.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret Beaufort actually
cried?Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàI am amazed ....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 18:38
> > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > Ooooops Liz..I meant to add that one woman, Margaret Beaufort did
not end up badly at all...quite the opposite...It is reported though that
she
cried at times when it was surprising she did so...her son's Coronation for
one...Maybe this was relief or even happiness...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes...and Im always amazed at the amount of knowledge it
contains..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you say about the women involved.....how true. For example
who cannot feel pity and wonder how Cecily Neville survived all the losses
she
sustained...and still standing. Well if her son is my hero, she is my
heroine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And although Elizabeth Woodville had some responsibility for her
losses...were they not dreadful. Although her daughter ended up on the
throne...she does not seem to have reaped much benefit from it...and, maybe,
to
have died without know where her sons were...If this was the case...It is
pitiful...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz
williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having just finished re-reading Annette's book (and would like
to say here howÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
marvellous it is!, I was thinking how awful it must have been for those of
Richard's friends and family who were left behind, particularly the women
who
couldn't even try and DO anything (ie rebel against Tudor).Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
It
must have been simplyÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
dreadful.Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012, 1:05
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > KATHRYN WILLIAMS wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agreed, it [Baldwin's book]leaves a lot to be desired.
Ã’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
There
are so many gaps in it and generalised assumptions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ElaineÃ’Æ'à 'Ã’â¬
'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused here as to whether I'm
responding to Kathryn or Elaine so I'm leaving both names.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding Baldwin, I'm at a loss as to how he could interpret
Richard's letter to Archbishop Russell giving Thomas Lynom permission to
marry
Elizabeth Shore as evidence of Richard's *mistreatment* of Mistress Shore.
As
far as I can determine, it's evidence of his generosity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Similarly, he interprets Richard's hope that his mother will
write to him often "to [his] comfort" as evidence that she hadn't forgiven
her
son for slurring her name in relation to Edward's supposed bastardy. Baldwin
doesn't seem to realize that it was George who challenged Edward's
legitimacy
(or rather he thinks that Richard followed George's example, for which the
only
shred of evidence I know of is a few words in the Titulus Regius (not
written by
Richard) stating him to be the undoubted son of Richard of York.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe I missed something in Baldwin (you can't check endnotes on
a Kindle Touch as you read, or at least I haven't figured out how to do it),
but
most of his accusations seem to be unsubstantiated. He's not as bad as
Desmond
Seward, of course, but then it would be hard to beat Seward for blind
devotion
to Sir Thomas More.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By the way, I seem to recall reading somewhere that Cecily
Neville once stated with pride, "I was the mother of two kings," which would
show that she was just as proud of Richard as of Edward. I understand, of
course, why she couldn't or wouldn't mention Richard in her will given the
Tudor
regime and why it was safe to mention Edward, the Tydder's father-in-law.
That's
merely a matter of prudence with no indication of her true feelings. But
does
anyone recognize the sentence about the two kings? It could, of course, have
come from a Ricardian novel, which would make it valueless. I'm sure I
didn't
invent it!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>













Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 14:39:24
Karen Clark
Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry
for the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just
go along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at
Middleham, or possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have
been kindness of a sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not
to strip her of everything she had and declare her dead in parliament.
Pollard wrote an article on the gold tablet found at Middleham (the
Middleham Jewel) and it seems to have caused some friction between the
countess and her son-in-law. It can be found in Much Shoving & Heaving:
Essays for Colin Richmond, Margaret Aston & Rosemary Horrox (eds). She
certainly wasn't shut away in a tower as suggested by one P Gregory!

As for Warwick and Edward IV, I think there's blame to be laid equally
there. Warwick could have swallowed some of his pride; and Edward could have
valued him more than he did in the end.

I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end.
It's hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done
to her.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:00:31 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
>r. Considering what happened in 1471/2, when the will of the
> Earl of Warwick was overturned, his widow disinherited, stripped of even her
> own properties and title, her jointure and her dower, and declared dead by
> Act of Parliament, ransacking the belongings of the dead wouldn't be
> something unique to Henry VII's reign.
>
> Karen

Karen..I agree with you on that totally....It was vile and disgraceful
behaviour. I lay the blame of this on King Edward's shoulders. Also his
treatment and attitude towards Warwick which led to Warwick rebellion
against him. In fact I lay everything that happened on his shoulders. I
always feel it was tragic that these two men could not get their acts
together as I think united they would have been formidable and magnificent.

How old was Richard at the time this treatment of the Countess of Warwick
was going on? 18ish? He certainly had little choice than to go along with
it or Clarence and Isobel would have copped the lot! I would like to
believe what I have read that the Countess was later given a home at
Middleham or if this is a tad romantic at least helped by her daughter and
son-in-law. Richard acted with kindness to other widows such as Hastings and
Buckingham's (who had behaved far worse in a personal sense to Richard
having plotted his death) widows so it would have been likely he would have
done the same for his mother-in-law.
The details of what happened to Warwick's widow vary as to which version you
read and are sketchy which is a shame as I really wanted to know what
became of her after she left Beauleiu.





Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 15:04:01
Judy Thomson
Hi, Eileen! There's a good book (albeit brief) by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs on the subject of Richard's Book of Hours. The special prayer was one of several things inserted into what appears to be a pre-owned book. The first page of this prayer has gone missing, and the presumed opening words are hand written (but not in Richard's hand) on the next page. Just before this, there's an invocation "de beato Juliano" (St. Julian the Hospitaler, also patron of travelers). which misled some into believing Richard's prayer began with this request for intercession. (see Pamela Tudor-Craig's catalogue for the Richard III exhibit at the NPG, 1973.) Now, it appears the rest of the prayer to St. Julian was filched (for its illuminations?); whether other pages are also among the missing, we'll just never know. 

What we do know is Richard's name was deliberately scraped off each time it appears in his personal prayer, but it is readily visible under UV light.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory


 
Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway

The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....

The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
Eileen

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
>
> Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> >  
> > Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 15:18:26
Johanne Tournier
Thanks for your detailed reply. It is helpful to clarify things for me, since I'm not really very knowledgeable about the period.



I wasn't suggesting that Richard's effects were treated like any old spoils of war; but I would think that Henry VII might well have laid claim to everything Richard left behind.



Do we know if Richard's book had a binding like what Cecily describes? It does sound like that's the way the Book was to be identified (my Book of Hours with the gold clasps and the black cloth of gold cover versus, hypothetically, my other Book of Hours that has a jeweled cover.



Is there any record of Richard's will and how his estate was handled?



I do think you're right; there's at least a fair possibility, since we know Margaret B. did get Richard's Book of Hours, and we know Cicely bequeathed a Book of Hours to Margaret, that they were/are one and the same.



TTFN,



Johanne





From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:29 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book





Johanne

It was definitely Margaret Beaufort Cecily was referring to. Katherine de
Valois (Henry VI's mother and Henry VII's grandmother) had been dead for
some considerable time. I doubt if Cecily would have referred to her as 'the
king's mother', anyway. Spedding defines 'portuous' as "A breviary or daily
service book" which fits. Whether it was Richard's book, I have no idea. His
Book of Hours may well have been seized, as you suggest, but we just don't
know. I can't imagine the contents of that tent being treated as common
spoils of war, though, especially if Richard left a will. If a report of
such looting turns up in a reliable source, then we might have a better idea
what happened to the book. Whether their piety was real, exaggerated or
wholly counterfeit, Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort did have that
reputation in common.

Cheers
Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:36:21 -0300
To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Hi, Karen 

What exactly is a portuos? Is that a word that would have meant Book of
Hours? How likely is it that the book referred to in Cecily's will is
Richard's Book of Hours? If, from what I have read, Richard had the Book
with him at Bosworth, he presumably would have left it in his tent. So, who
would have had possession of his things after the Battle? If Cecily got it,
presumably it would have been one of the Yorkists who would have taken
possession of it and transferred it to her. Otherwise, the camp probably
would have been seized by the victors  and, as someone noted, to the
victor go the spoils. In which case, I think it is unlikely that Henry or
his henchmen would have given the Book of Hours to Cecily. On the other
hand, we do indubitably have an instance in Cecily's will of a rather
special book being willed by her to the mother of Henry VII. That certainly
bespeaks of an interesting internal psychological dynamic going on between
the two. Is it absolutely certain that Cecily was referring to Margaret
Beaufort, and not, say, Henry VI's mother? (I don't know anything about the
latter lady, and of course, she may have been deceased for years. It's just
a thought.)

Take care,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv> <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:25 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Just found this reference in Cecily's will:

"Also I bequeith to my lady the kinges moder a portuos with claspes of gold
covered with blacke cloth of golde"

This might be the book in question. In which case, it was left to Margaret
Beaufort, not stolen by anyone.

Karen



Recent Activity:

· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYnFhN3JxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNDg0OTMzMzY-?o=6> New Members 2

· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZnQ5ZzVoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMzQ4NDkzMzM2> New Files 1

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY2dudDlhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM0ODQ5MzMzNg--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaGUyazVkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzQ4NDkzMzM2> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=15938/stime=1348493336/nc1=4025304/nc2=5008814/nc3=3848627>





Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 15:28:49
Karen Clark
Johanne

I don't know enough about the book in question..

There's this (which I can't afford at the moment, but one day!)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hours-Richard-III-History/dp/0750911840

There are images on the web, but none that I can find that show the cover.

As for a will, I can't help you there, I'm afraid. Maybe someone else can.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:18:23 -0300
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Thanks for your detailed reply. It is helpful to clarify things for me,
since I¹m not really very knowledgeable about the period.

I wasn¹t suggesting that Richard¹s effects were treated like any old spoils
of war; but I would think that Henry VII might well have laid claim to
everything Richard left behind.

Do we know if Richard¹s book had a binding like what Cecily describes? It
does sound like that¹s the way the Book was to be identified (³my Book of
Hours with the gold clasps and the black cloth of gold cover² versus,
hypothetically, ³my other Book of Hours that has a jeweled cover.²

Is there any record of Richard¹s will and how his estate was handled?

I do think you¹re right; there¹s at least a fair possibility, since we know
Margaret B. did get Richard¹s Book of Hours, and we know Cicely bequeathed a
Book of Hours to Margaret, that they were/are one and the same.

TTFN,

Johanne

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:29 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Johanne

It was definitely Margaret Beaufort Cecily was referring to. Katherine de
Valois (Henry VI's mother and Henry VII's grandmother) had been dead for
some considerable time. I doubt if Cecily would have referred to her as 'the
king's mother', anyway. Spedding defines 'portuous' as "A breviary or daily
service book" which fits. Whether it was Richard's book, I have no idea. His
Book of Hours may well have been seized, as you suggest, but we just don't
know. I can't imagine the contents of that tent being treated as common
spoils of war, though, especially if Richard left a will. If a report of
such looting turns up in a reliable source, then we might have a better idea
what happened to the book. Whether their piety was real, exaggerated or
wholly counterfeit, Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort did have that
reputation in common.

Cheers
Karen






Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 16:14:09
ellrosa1452
Eileen

I have attached a copy of the Prayer to the files. Can't remember where I got this copy from though. Will try and find it again although I do have the copy from the Livia Visser-Fuchs and some of the illustrations. I don't know whether I would be allowed to upload those due to copyright restrictions.

The exhibition at Lambeth Palace finished earlier in the summer - late July, I think. I only found out about it after it had finished otherwise I would have gone.
Elaine

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen! There's a good book (albeit brief) by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs on the subject of Richard's Book of Hours. The special prayer was one of several things inserted into what appears to be a pre-owned book. The first page of this prayer has gone missing, and the presumed opening words are hand written (but not in Richard's hand) on the next page. Just before this, there's an invocation "de beato Juliano" (St. Julian the Hospitaler, also patron of travelers). which misled some into believing Richard's prayer began with this request for intercession. (see Pamela Tudor-Craig's catalogue for the Richard III exhibit at the NPG, 1973.) Now, it appears the rest of the prayer to St. Julian was filched (for its illuminations?); whether other pages are also among the missing, we'll just never know. 
>
> What we do know is Richard's name was deliberately scraped off each time it appears in his personal prayer, but it is readily visible under UV light.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory
>
>
>  
> Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway
>
> The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....
>
> The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
> >
> > Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >  
> > > Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 16:50:07
b.eileen25
Karen....I agree..totally awful what happened to the Countess...and whoever was to blame there is no excuse.....

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry
> for the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just
> go along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at
> Middleham, or possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have
> been kindness of a sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not
> to strip her of everything she had and declare her dead in parliament.
> Pollard wrote an article on the gold tablet found at Middleham (the
> Middleham Jewel) and it seems to have caused some friction between the
> countess and her son-in-law. It can be found in Much Shoving & Heaving:
> Essays for Colin Richmond, Margaret Aston & Rosemary Horrox (eds). She
> certainly wasn't shut away in a tower as suggested by one P Gregory!
>
> As for Warwick and Edward IV, I think there's blame to be laid equally
> there. Warwick could have swallowed some of his pride; and Edward could have
> valued him more than he did in the end.
>
> I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end.
> It's hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done
> to her.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:00:31 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >r. Considering what happened in 1471/2, when the will of the
> > Earl of Warwick was overturned, his widow disinherited, stripped of even her
> > own properties and title, her jointure and her dower, and declared dead by
> > Act of Parliament, ransacking the belongings of the dead wouldn't be
> > something unique to Henry VII's reign.
> >
> > Karen
>
> Karen..I agree with you on that totally....It was vile and disgraceful
> behaviour. I lay the blame of this on King Edward's shoulders. Also his
> treatment and attitude towards Warwick which led to Warwick rebellion
> against him. In fact I lay everything that happened on his shoulders. I
> always feel it was tragic that these two men could not get their acts
> together as I think united they would have been formidable and magnificent.
>
> How old was Richard at the time this treatment of the Countess of Warwick
> was going on? 18ish? He certainly had little choice than to go along with
> it or Clarence and Isobel would have copped the lot! I would like to
> believe what I have read that the Countess was later given a home at
> Middleham or if this is a tad romantic at least helped by her daughter and
> son-in-law. Richard acted with kindness to other widows such as Hastings and
> Buckingham's (who had behaved far worse in a personal sense to Richard
> having plotted his death) widows so it would have been likely he would have
> done the same for his mother-in-law.
> The details of what happened to Warwick's widow vary as to which version you
> read and are sketchy which is a shame as I really wanted to know what
> became of her after she left Beauleiu.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 16:53:33
EileenB
Thank you so much Elaine....beautiful and moving....For Richard to have chosen this prayer says a lot for his mindset at the time. Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
>
> I have attached a copy of the Prayer to the files. Can't remember where I got this copy from though. Will try and find it again although I do have the copy from the Livia Visser-Fuchs and some of the illustrations. I don't know whether I would be allowed to upload those due to copyright restrictions.
>
> The exhibition at Lambeth Palace finished earlier in the summer - late July, I think. I only found out about it after it had finished otherwise I would have gone.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Eileen! There's a good book (albeit brief) by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs on the subject of Richard's Book of Hours. The special prayer was one of several things inserted into what appears to be a pre-owned book. The first page of this prayer has gone missing, and the presumed opening words are hand written (but not in Richard's hand) on the next page. Just before this, there's an invocation "de beato Juliano" (St. Julian the Hospitaler, also patron of travelers). which misled some into believing Richard's prayer began with this request for intercession. (see Pamela Tudor-Craig's catalogue for the Richard III exhibit at the NPG, 1973.) Now, it appears the rest of the prayer to St. Julian was filched (for its illuminations?); whether other pages are also among the missing, we'll just never know. 
> >
> > What we do know is Richard's name was deliberately scraped off each time it appears in his personal prayer, but it is readily visible under UV light.
> >
> > Judy
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory
> >
> >
> >  
> > Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway
> >
> > The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....
> >
> > The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
> > >
> > > Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> > > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > > >  
> > > > Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 17:09:45
EileenB
Thanks for that Judy....I took a look on Amazon....Wow...Its pricey! I would love to own The Coronation of Richard lll which I think is by these two ladies...but that too is rather out of my price range....Possibly the Coronation book was reasonably priced at one time but if they go out of print you stand no chance...

Can you clarify please Judy...you say :"which mislead some into believing Richard's prayer begun with this intercession"...is the intercession you refer to the beautiful prayer in the file downloaded by Elaine?

Thank you Judy....Eileen


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen! There's a good book (albeit brief) by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs on the subject of Richard's Book of Hours. The special prayer was one of several things inserted into what appears to be a pre-owned book. The first page of this prayer has gone missing, and the presumed opening words are hand written (but not in Richard's hand) on the next page. Just before this, there's an invocation "de beato Juliano" (St. Julian the Hospitaler, also patron of travelers). which misled some into believing Richard's prayer began with this request for intercession. (see Pamela Tudor-Craig's catalogue for the Richard III exhibit at the NPG, 1973.) Now, it appears the rest of the prayer to St. Julian was filched (for its illuminations?); whether other pages are also among the missing, we'll just never know. 
>
> What we do know is Richard's name was deliberately scraped off each time it appears in his personal prayer, but it is readily visible under UV light.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory
>
>
>  
> Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway
>
> The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....
>
> The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
> >
> > Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.  It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >  
> > > Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 17:10:57
justcarol67
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Yes, I have a copy of the will, and the article by Alison Spedding. (Also courtesy of Susan.) <snip> If the book mentioned was Richard's, it could point to a connection between the women that wasn't predicated on Margaret being the mother-in-law from hell and
> Cecily trying to placate her. I haven't seen Richard's Book of Hours, nor can I find a picture on the net that shows the over. Still, it's worth considering. <snip>

Carol responds:

I have a copy of "The Hours of Richard III" by Anne F. Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs. Unfortunately for this discussion, the original cover has been replaced by a mid-sixteenth-century cover (whose color isn't given). According to the authors, the book was almost certainly part of the booty collected by Tudor's men after the Battle of Bosworth, which is thought to have gone to the Stanleys. The next owner to inscribe her name was Margaret Beaufort, wife of Lord Stanley, who presumably gave it to her. The authors reject the theory that she maliciously erased Richard's name from "his" prayer, noting that "a revengeful person would scarcely have missed the entry for his birth in the Calendar, which includes his title) and they speculate that the erasures were made by "some pious later person who didn't want the name Ricardum to interfere with his or her devotions" and add that Margaret would probably have erased Rex as well as Ricardum if she had erased the name. At some point, Margaret gave the book away, but later owners have not been identified. It was in the library of the See of Canterbury in the early seveteenth century, transferred from there to the Lambeth Palace Library, and ended up in the Cambridge University Library. The authors add, "In view of the long period it has been at Lambeth Palace, it cannot be assumed that all the erasures in the text and the mutilation of Folio 55 occurred in the sixteenth [or late fifteenth?] century." (Folio 55 consisted mainly of psalms and is not particularly significant with regard to Richard.) the only other mention of Margaret Beaufort is in a note, which states that her own Book of Hours, given to her by her mother, was of much poorer quality than Richard's.

I would need to reread the book before making any further comments, but I'm curious to know where the idea that Margaret wrote derogatory comments all over it came from. Personally, I don't think that Margaret, who made a show of her piety (which may well have been real, whatever we think of her political manipulations and aspirations for her son) would deface a Book of Hours, regardless of its previous owner. She may even have used it for her own devotions.

Carol, who brilliantly put red pepper instead of creamer in her coffee this morning (note to self: Read the packet!)

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 17:17:49
Judy Thomson
Karen,

I had found my copy used (and more reasonably priced). 

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
Johanne

I don't know enough about the book in question..

There's this (which I can't afford at the moment, but one day!)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hours-Richard-III-History/dp/0750911840

There are images on the web, but none that I can find that show the cover.

As for a will, I can't help you there, I'm afraid. Maybe someone else can.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:18:23 -0300
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Thanks for your detailed reply. It is helpful to clarify things for me,
since I¹m not really very knowledgeable about the period.

I wasn¹t suggesting that Richard¹s effects were treated like any old spoils
of war; but I would think that Henry VII might well have laid claim to
everything Richard left behind.

Do we know if Richard¹s book had a binding like what Cecily describes? It
does sound like that¹s the way the Book was to be identified (³my Book of
Hours with the gold clasps and the black cloth of gold cover² versus,
hypothetically, ³my other Book of Hours that has a jeweled cover.²

Is there any record of Richard¹s will and how his estate was handled?

I do think you¹re right; there¹s at least a fair possibility, since we know
Margaret B. did get Richard¹s Book of Hours, and we know Cicely bequeathed a
Book of Hours to Margaret, that they were/are one and the same.

TTFN,

Johanne

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:29 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Johanne

It was definitely Margaret Beaufort Cecily was referring to. Katherine de
Valois (Henry VI's mother and Henry VII's grandmother) had been dead for
some considerable time. I doubt if Cecily would have referred to her as 'the
king's mother', anyway. Spedding defines 'portuous' as "A breviary or daily
service book" which fits. Whether it was Richard's book, I have no idea. His
Book of Hours may well have been seized, as you suggest, but we just don't
know. I can't imagine the contents of that tent being treated as common
spoils of war, though, especially if Richard left a will. If a report of
such looting turns up in a reliable source, then we might have a better idea
what happened to the book. Whether their piety was real, exaggerated or
wholly counterfeit, Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort did have that
reputation in common.

Cheers
Karen






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 17:34:08
Karen Clark
Thanks, Judy. I'm still some time away from collecting books specifically
about or connected with Richard. Hopefully there'll still be a nice second
hand copy when I do.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Karen,

I had found my copy used (and more reasonably priced).

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book



Johanne

I don't know enough about the book in question..

There's this (which I can't afford at the moment, but one day!)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hours-Richard-III-History/dp/0750911840

There are images on the web, but none that I can find that show the cover.

As for a will, I can't help you there, I'm afraid. Maybe someone else can.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:18:23 -0300
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Thanks for your detailed reply. It is helpful to clarify things for me,
since I¹m not really very knowledgeable about the period.

I wasn¹t suggesting that Richard¹s effects were treated like any old spoils
of war; but I would think that Henry VII might well have laid claim to
everything Richard left behind.

Do we know if Richard¹s book had a binding like what Cecily describes? It
does sound like that¹s the way the Book was to be identified (³my Book of
Hours with the gold clasps and the black cloth of gold cover² versus,
hypothetically, ³my other Book of Hours that has a jeweled cover.²

Is there any record of Richard¹s will and how his estate was handled?

I do think you¹re right; there¹s at least a fair possibility, since we know
Margaret B. did get Richard¹s Book of Hours, and we know Cicely bequeathed a
Book of Hours to Margaret, that they were/are one and the same.

TTFN,

Johanne

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:29 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Johanne

It was definitely Margaret Beaufort Cecily was referring to. Katherine de
Valois (Henry VI's mother and Henry VII's grandmother) had been dead for
some considerable time. I doubt if Cecily would have referred to her as 'the
king's mother', anyway. Spedding defines 'portuous' as "A breviary or daily
service book" which fits. Whether it was Richard's book, I have no idea. His
Book of Hours may well have been seized, as you suggest, but we just don't
know. I can't imagine the contents of that tent being treated as common
spoils of war, though, especially if Richard left a will. If a report of
such looting turns up in a reliable source, then we might have a better idea
what happened to the book. Whether their piety was real, exaggerated or
wholly counterfeit, Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort did have that
reputation in common.

Cheers
Karen













Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 17:34:11
Judy Thomson
No, the "intercession" I refer to was addressed to St. Julian. The following page or pages are missing, including the opening of Richard's personal prayer. At one time, the "de beato Juliano" was believed to begin Richard's prayer, but Sutton/Visser-Fuchs point out how pages are actually gone between. Since the opening of Richard's prayer is also gone, we can only presume whoever wrote this missing passage by hand on the next page gave us an accurate rendition.

I found my copy of Richard's Book of Hours through a dealer of used books. Don't despair. Mine was reasonably priced. I did really luck out on the Coronation. I bought it directly from Alan Sutton at their table at the annual Medieval Conference in Kalamazoo, Michigan, some years ago...and for half price, on a Sunday morning. My friend, with whom I'd come, used her scholarly credentials to get an initial discount, and then (perhaps because we bought a whole carton of their books), we got an additional markdown on everything - we considerably  lightened the load of what they had to lug back or ship to the UK upon their return :-).

Judy

 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory


 
Thanks for that Judy....I took a look on Amazon....Wow...Its pricey! I would love to own The Coronation of Richard lll which I think is by these two ladies...but that too is rather out of my price range....Possibly the Coronation book was reasonably priced at one time but if they go out of print you stand no chance...

Can you clarify please Judy...you say :"which mislead some into believing Richard's prayer begun with this intercession"...is the intercession you refer to the beautiful prayer in the file downloaded by Elaine?

Thank you Judy....Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen! There's a good book (albeit brief) by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs on the subject of Richard's Book of Hours. The special prayer was one of several things inserted into what appears to be a pre-owned book. The first page of this prayer has gone missing, and the presumed opening words are hand written (but not in Richard's hand) on the next page. Just before this, there's an invocation "de beato Juliano" (St. Julian the Hospitaler, also patron of travelers). which misled some into believing Richard's prayer began with this request for intercession. (see Pamela Tudor-Craig's catalogue for the Richard III exhibit at the NPG, 1973.) Now, it appears the rest of the prayer to St. Julian was filched (for its illuminations?); whether other pages are also among the missing, we'll just never know. 
>
> What we do know is Richard's name was deliberately scraped off each time it appears in his personal prayer, but it is readily visible under UV light.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory
>
>
>  
> Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway
>
> The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....
>
> The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
> >
> > Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.à It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
> > >  
> > > Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 17:35:55
justcarol67
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>

> I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.

Carol responds:

As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel), wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)

So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it before or after Richard's death?

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 17:46:53
Judy Thomson
Yes, and I believe you will. As an "antique-hunter" of many years, I've found the best bargains in places that specialize in other areas. The dealers sometimes undervalue those items that aren't part of their expertise. (Richard's Hours came from a dealer who sells books of a very unrelated genre; he bought it as part of a "lot" and was happy to part with it at a price more in line with available Ricardian books). Good luck.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
Thanks, Judy. I'm still some time away from collecting books specifically
about or connected with Richard. Hopefully there'll still be a nice second
hand copy when I do.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Karen,

I had found my copy used (and more reasonably priced).

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book


Johanne

I don't know enough about the book in question..

There's this (which I can't afford at the moment, but one day!)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hours-Richard-III-History/dp/0750911840

There are images on the web, but none that I can find that show the cover.

As for a will, I can't help you there, I'm afraid. Maybe someone else can.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:18:23 -0300
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Thanks for your detailed reply. It is helpful to clarify things for me,
since I¹m not really very knowledgeable about the period.

I wasn¹t suggesting that Richard¹s effects were treated like any old spoils
of war; but I would think that Henry VII might well have laid claim to
everything Richard left behind.

Do we know if Richard¹s book had a binding like what Cecily describes? It
does sound like that¹s the way the Book was to be identified (³my Book of
Hours with the gold clasps and the black cloth of gold cover² versus,
hypothetically, ³my other Book of Hours that has a jeweled cover.²

Is there any record of Richard¹s will and how his estate was handled?

I do think you¹re right; there¹s at least a fair possibility, since we know
Margaret B. did get Richard¹s Book of Hours, and we know Cicely bequeathed a
Book of Hours to Margaret, that they were/are one and the same.

TTFN,

Johanne

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:29 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Johanne

It was definitely Margaret Beaufort Cecily was referring to. Katherine de
Valois (Henry VI's mother and Henry VII's grandmother) had been dead for
some considerable time. I doubt if Cecily would have referred to her as 'the
king's mother', anyway. Spedding defines 'portuous' as "A breviary or daily
service book" which fits. Whether it was Richard's book, I have no idea. His
Book of Hours may well have been seized, as you suggest, but we just don't
know. I can't imagine the contents of that tent being treated as common
spoils of war, though, especially if Richard left a will. If a report of
such looting turns up in a reliable source, then we might have a better idea
what happened to the book. Whether their piety was real, exaggerated or
wholly counterfeit, Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort did have that
reputation in common.

Cheers
Karen










Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 17:54:07
Karen Clark
Carol

The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
until the deed was done.

I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
ck-wife-widow/

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>

> I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.

Carol responds:

As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)

So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
before or after Richard's death?

Carol









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 17:55:53
Karen Clark
Thanks, Judy. I have a friend who runs a second hand bookshop and she's
keeping an eye out for things for me. Maybe I'll luck out. Though here in
the Snowy Mountains I'm not sure it's awash with history buffs.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Yes, and I believe you will. As an "antique-hunter" of many years, I've
found the best bargains in places that specialize in other areas. The
dealers sometimes undervalue those items that aren't part of their
expertise. (Richard's Hours came from a dealer who sells books of a very
unrelated genre; he bought it as part of a "lot" and was happy to part with
it at a price more in line with available Ricardian books). Good luck.

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book



Thanks, Judy. I'm still some time away from collecting books specifically
about or connected with Richard. Hopefully there'll still be a nice second
hand copy when I do.

Karen

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...
<mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Karen,

I had found my copy used (and more reasonably priced).

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Johanne

I don't know enough about the book in question..

There's this (which I can't afford at the moment, but one day!)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hours-Richard-III-History/dp/0750911840

There are images on the web, but none that I can find that show the cover.

As for a will, I can't help you there, I'm afraid. Maybe someone else can.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:18:23 -0300
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Thanks for your detailed reply. It is helpful to clarify things for me,
since I¹m not really very knowledgeable about the period.

I wasn¹t suggesting that Richard¹s effects were treated like any old spoils
of war; but I would think that Henry VII might well have laid claim to
everything Richard left behind.

Do we know if Richard¹s book had a binding like what Cecily describes? It
does sound like that¹s the way the Book was to be identified (³my Book of
Hours with the gold clasps and the black cloth of gold cover² versus,
hypothetically, ³my other Book of Hours that has a jeweled cover.²

Is there any record of Richard¹s will and how his estate was handled?

I do think you¹re right; there¹s at least a fair possibility, since we know
Margaret B. did get Richard¹s Book of Hours, and we know Cicely bequeathed a
Book of Hours to Margaret, that they were/are one and the same.

TTFN,

Johanne

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:29 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Johanne

It was definitely Margaret Beaufort Cecily was referring to. Katherine de
Valois (Henry VI's mother and Henry VII's grandmother) had been dead for
some considerable time. I doubt if Cecily would have referred to her as 'the
king's mother', anyway. Spedding defines 'portuous' as "A breviary or daily
service book" which fits. Whether it was Richard's book, I have no idea. His
Book of Hours may well have been seized, as you suggest, but we just don't
know. I can't imagine the contents of that tent being treated as common
spoils of war, though, especially if Richard left a will. If a report of
such looting turns up in a reliable source, then we might have a better idea
what happened to the book. Whether their piety was real, exaggerated or
wholly counterfeit, Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort did have that
reputation in common.

Cheers
Karen

















Re: Henry VI's mother

2012-09-24 18:41:09
justcarol67
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> <snip> Is it absolutely certain that Cecily was referring to Margaret Beaufort, and not, say, Henry VI’s mother? (I don’t know anything about the latter lady, and of course, she may have been deceased for years. It’s just a thought.)

Carol responds:

I think we've answered most of your other questions, but this one got left by the wayside. Henry VI's mother was Catherine of Valois, daughter of the French King Charles VI and wife of the Lancastrian King Henry V (of Agincourt fame). When Henry V died, leaving Henry VI as his infant heir, the French-born queen was rejected as regent (being female and French) but given a role in her son's upbringing. She was forbidden to marry without the king's consent--a bit hard to obtain considering that he was a little child.

Anyway, Catherine left the court and either secretly married or had a long-lasting affair with a minstrel named Owen Tudor, father of Edmund Tudor, father of the future Henry VII. I would go into more detail, but I don't know how much you want to know. In any case, Catherine died in 1437, long before Richard III or Henry VII was even born.

Since Henry Tudor's grandmother's marriage was secret and may never have happened (no one has ever found documentation for it) and Margaret Beaufort was descended from the Beaufort line (descendants of John of Gaunt whom Richard II legitimized but the Lancastrian usurper Henry IV, their half-brother, barred from the throne), Richard III considered Henry Tudor's descent to be illegitimate on both sides. He certainly had only the shakiest of claims to be the rightful Lancastrian heir after Henry VI's only son, Edward of Lancaster, was killed at Tewkesbury and Henry VI himself died in the Tower of London (probably executed on Edward IV's orders).

Henry VII was Henry VI's half-nephew on the *mother's* side (Edmund Tudor was Henry VII's half-brother), giving Henry Tudor no claim to the throne of England (but a distant claim to the throne of France). Tudor's only claim to the throne came through the Beaufort line--a very shaky claim indeed (which is why he later claimed the throne "by right of conquest"). All the Yorkists and some descendants of John of Gaunt through female lines had better claims than Henry Tudor did. So, for that matter, did the Duke of Buckingham, who first befriended and then betrayed Richard III.

Hope this isn't too detailed for you!

Carol

Re: Henry VI's mother

2012-09-24 20:38:10
david rayner
It's been rumoured that Catherine had a fling with the Duke of Somerset before hitching up with Owen, and that through that union the Tudor dynasty were really Plantagenets after all. 

Prince Edward of Lancaster may also have been a secret Beaufort (although there are plenty of other candidates); how I wish we could get hold of DNA samples from all these folk.




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 September 2012, 18:41
Subject: Re: Henry VI's mother


 

Johanne Tournier wrote:
> <snip> Is it absolutely certain that Cecily was referring to Margaret Beaufort, and not, say, Henry VIâ¬"s mother? (I donâ¬"t know anything about the latter lady, and of course, she may have been deceased for years. Itâ¬"s just a thought.)

Carol responds:

I think we've answered most of your other questions, but this one got left by the wayside. Henry VI's mother was Catherine of Valois, daughter of the French King Charles VI and wife of the Lancastrian King Henry V (of Agincourt fame). When Henry V died, leaving Henry VI as his infant heir, the French-born queen was rejected as regent (being female and French) but given a role in her son's upbringing. She was forbidden to marry without the king's consent--a bit hard to obtain considering that he was a little child.

Anyway, Catherine left the court and either secretly married or had a long-lasting affair with a minstrel named Owen Tudor, father of Edmund Tudor, father of the future Henry VII. I would go into more detail, but I don't know how much you want to know. In any case, Catherine died in 1437, long before Richard III or Henry VII was even born.

Since Henry Tudor's grandmother's marriage was secret and may never have happened (no one has ever found documentation for it) and Margaret Beaufort was descended from the Beaufort line (descendants of John of Gaunt whom Richard II legitimized but the Lancastrian usurper Henry IV, their half-brother, barred from the throne), Richard III considered Henry Tudor's descent to be illegitimate on both sides. He certainly had only the shakiest of claims to be the rightful Lancastrian heir after Henry VI's only son, Edward of Lancaster, was killed at Tewkesbury and Henry VI himself died in the Tower of London (probably executed on Edward IV's orders).

Henry VII was Henry VI's half-nephew on the *mother's* side (Edmund Tudor was Henry VII's half-brother), giving Henry Tudor no claim to the throne of England (but a distant claim to the throne of France). Tudor's only claim to the throne came through the Beaufort line--a very shaky claim indeed (which is why he later claimed the throne "by right of conquest"). All the Yorkists and some descendants of John of Gaunt through female lines had better claims than Henry Tudor did. So, for that matter, did the Duke of Buckingham, who first befriended and then betrayed Richard III.

Hope this isn't too detailed for you!

Carol




Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 20:44:44
Paul Trevor Bale
Richard III's Books cost 30UKP when new, 16 years ago, so I dread to think what you need to pay now!
The Coronation I bought in the early 80s when it came out, along with The Great Chronicle of London, both published by the sadly demised Alan Sutton publishers. I recall working two weekends to pay for them!
Most Ricardian books one should try to buy when they come out, in case there are no reprints, or the same thing happens that happened to Alan Sutton.
Paul


On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:09, EileenB wrote:

> Thanks for that Judy....I took a look on Amazon....Wow...Its pricey! I would love to own The Coronation of Richard lll which I think is by these two ladies...but that too is rather out of my price range....Possibly the Coronation book was reasonably priced at one time but if they go out of print you stand no chance...
>
> Can you clarify please Judy...you say :"which mislead some into believing Richard's prayer begun with this intercession"...is the intercession you refer to the beautiful prayer in the file downloaded by Elaine?
>
> Thank you Judy....Eileen
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Eileen! There's a good book (albeit brief) by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs on the subject of Richard's Book of Hours. The special prayer was one of several things inserted into what appears to be a pre-owned book. The first page of this prayer has gone missing, and the presumed opening words are hand written (but not in Richard's hand) on the next page. Just before this, there's an invocation "de beato Juliano" (St. Julian the Hospitaler, also patron of travelers). which misled some into believing Richard's prayer began with this request for intercession. (see Pamela Tudor-Craig's catalogue for the Richard III exhibit at the NPG, 1973.) Now, it appears the rest of the prayer to St. Julian was filched (for its illuminations?); whether other pages are also among the missing, we'll just never know.Â
>>
>> What we do know is Richard's name was deliberately scraped off each time it appears in his personal prayer, but it is readily visible under UV light.
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway
>>
>> The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....
>>
>> The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
>>>
>>> Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
>>>
>>> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.ÃÂ It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
>>>> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>>>> Â
>>>> Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory

2012-09-24 20:48:06
Paul Trevor Bale
And the Book of Hours alone came out in paperback the year after Richard III's Books at 13UKP. The hardback was 25UKP.
Paul


On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Judy Thomson wrote:

> No, the "intercession" I refer to was addressed to St. Julian. The following page or pages are missing, including the opening of Richard's personal prayer. At one time, the "de beato Juliano" was believed to begin Richard's prayer, but Sutton/Visser-Fuchs point out how pages are actually gone between. Since the opening of Richard's prayer is also gone, we can only presume whoever wrote this missing passage by hand on the next page gave us an accurate rendition.
>
> I found my copy of Richard's Book of Hours through a dealer of used books. Don't despair. Mine was reasonably priced. I did really luck out on the Coronation. I bought it directly from Alan Sutton at their table at the annual Medieval Conference in Kalamazoo, Michigan, some years ago...and for half price, on a Sunday morning. My friend, with whom I'd come, used her scholarly credentials to get an initial discount, and then (perhaps because we bought a whole carton of their books), we got an additional markdown on everything - we considerably lightened the load of what they had to lug back or ship to the UK upon their return :-).
>
> Judy
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:09 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory
>
>
>
> Thanks for that Judy....I took a look on Amazon....Wow...Its pricey! I would love to own The Coronation of Richard lll which I think is by these two ladies...but that too is rather out of my price range....Possibly the Coronation book was reasonably priced at one time but if they go out of print you stand no chance...
>
> Can you clarify please Judy...you say :"which mislead some into believing Richard's prayer begun with this intercession"...is the intercession you refer to the beautiful prayer in the file downloaded by Elaine?
>
> Thank you Judy....Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Eileen! There's a good book (albeit brief) by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs on the subject of Richard's Book of Hours. The special prayer was one of several things inserted into what appears to be a pre-owned book. The first page of this prayer has gone missing, and the presumed opening words are hand written (but not in Richard's hand) on the next page. Just before this, there's an invocation "de beato Juliano" (St. Julian the Hospitaler, also patron of travelers). which misled some into believing Richard's prayer began with this request for intercession. (see Pamela Tudor-Craig's catalogue for the Richard III exhibit at the NPG, 1973.) Now, it appears the rest of the prayer to St. Julian was filched (for its illuminations?); whether other pages are also among the missing, we'll just never know.Â
>>
>> What we do know is Richard's name was deliberately scraped off each time it appears in his personal prayer, but it is readily visible under UV light.
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard's Book of Hours: the Spoils of Victory
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Mcjohn...I wish I knew your name....anyway
>>
>> The Annunciation from Richard's Book of Hours is a Lambeth Palace Library. It is thought that it would have been in Richard's tent at Bosworth...where it was obviously filched from and given to Margaret.....
>>
>> The Hours also had a rather lovely and personal prayer of Richard's which if I recall correctly was written in his own hand. Im going to have a look through my books and find it....
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, Liz, you ain't heard nothing yet. Margie the B not only got Richard's Book of Hours (which had been put together just for him), she spent some time thereafter laboriously adding a bunch of graffiti in the margins to the effect that "Richard was a big ol' nasty poopy-head." In other words, the Queen Mother had the emotional maturity and grace in victory of a bratty two-year-old.
>>>
>>> Richard's Book of Hours is on display at a museum... uh... somewhere in the UK? (As we all know, recollection of detail is not my strongest attribute.) Anyway, at least her thoroughly rotten behavior is on public view on a continuing basis.
>>>
>>> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh I didn't know that, that's disgusting.ÃÂ It should have gone to one of his family - probably his mother
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 17:38
>>>> Subject: Re: David Baldwin/Tears of a Beaufort
>>>> Â
>>>> Maybe she felt guilty about owning Richard's Book of Hours which Henry gave her. Not an honourable way to behave.....
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 22:26:20
mariewalsh2003
Hi Carol,

This is the full text (ref British Library MS Cotton Julius BXII, folios 317-8), one of a collection of documents once clearly in Richard's keeping. It is not a letter really, but a petition to parliament. Since it was not passed it can't be found in thee Parliament Rolls. The transcription is my own.

"To the right worshipfull & discrete comyns of this present parlement
Shewith vnto your wisdomes and discrecions the kynges true liege woman Anne Countesse of Warrewyk whiche neuer offended his most redoghted highnes for she immediately after the dethe of hir lord And husbond on whos soule God haue mercy for noon' offence by her doon but dredyng only trouble beyng that tyme [whiche] within this realme entred into the Seintuare of Beaulieu for suertie of hir persone to dispose for the weel and helthe of the soule of hir seid lord and husbond as right And conscience required her so to doo makyng within .v. dayes or ner' ther' abowtes after her entre into the seid seyntuare her labores suytes and meanes to the Kynges Highnes for her safe garde to be had as diligently and effectuelly as her power wold extend she not saisyng but after her power contynuyng in such labores suytes and meanes in so moche that in absence of clerkes she hathe wretyn lettres in that behalfe to the kynges highness with her owne hand And not only makyng suche labores suytes and meanes to the Kynges Highnes sothely also to the Quenes good grace to my ryght redoghted lady the kynges moder to my lady the kynges eldest doughter to my lordes the kynges brethren to my ladyes the kynges Susters to my lady of Bedford moder to the Quene and to other ladyes noble of this realme In whiche labores suytes and meanes she hathe contynued hyderto and so wyll contynue as she owes to doo tyl it may please the kynge of his most good and noble grace to haue consideracion that duryng the lyfe of her seid lord and husbond she was couert Baron' whiche poynt she remyttes to your grete wisdomes And that after his deceasse all the tyme of her beyng in the seid seyntuare she hath duly kept her fidelite and ligeaunce and obeied the kynges commaundementz how be it hit hath pleased the Kynges Highnes by some synester informacion to his seid Highness made to directe his most drad letters to the Abbot of the monastere of Beaulieu [which] with right sharpe commaundement that suche persones as his highness sent to the seid monastere shuld haue garde and strayte kepyng of her persone whiche was and is to her grete hertys grevaunce she specially feryng that the priuileges & libertees of the churche by suche kepyng of her persone moght be interrupt and violate where the priuileges of the seid seyntuare were neuer so largly attempted in to this tyme as is seid yet the seid Anne & Countesse vnder protestacion by her made hath suffred strayte kepyng of her persone and yet doth that her fidelite and ligeaunce to the Kynges Highnes the better moght be vnderstand hopyng [th] she myght the rather haue had larges to make suytes to the Kynges Highnes in her owne persone for her lyuelode and suche full inheritaunce whiche lyuelode and inheritaunce with all revenous and prouentus therto perteynyng with her Joyntour also and dower of the Erldome of Salesbury fully and holy hath be restrayned fro her from the tyme of the dethe of her seid lord and husbond in to this day And for as moche as our souerayn lord the Kynge of his grete grace hath sette and assembled his high[t] Court of parlement for reformacions right and equite to all his subjettys and liege people duly to be mynystred The said Anne and Countesse humbly besechith your grete wisdomes to pondre and waye in your consciences her right and true title of her inheritaunce as the Erldom of Warrewyk and Spencers londes to whiche she is rightfully born by lyneal succession And also her iointour and dower of the Erldom of Salesbury forseid And to [shewe] her youre benyvolence that by the kyngis good grace and auctorite of this his noble parlement she may to her forsaid lyuelode and rightfull inheritaunce Duly be restored and it enioye as the lawes of all myghty God and of this noble realme right also and conscience doth require Besechyng hertely your grete goodnesses in the reuerence of allmyghty God and of his most blessed moder well of grace to consider the pore estate she standes in how in her owne persone she may not sollicite the premissez as she wold and she moght ner is of power any sufficient sollicitour in this byhalf to make and thogh she moght as may not ther is noon that dar take it vpon hym To haue also this pore bylle in your tendre remembraunce that your parfyte charite and good will may sollicite theffecte of the same whiche to doo her power at this tyme may not extend And shal pray and do pray to God for you"

Marie


--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> until the deed was done.
>
> I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
>
> http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> ck-wife-widow/
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
> the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
> along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
>
> > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
>
> So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> before or after Richard's death?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-24 23:09:27
mariewalsh2003
Karen,

I think it's important not to imagine the Countess wmust have been an innocent child just because she was in a sticky position after Tewkesbury. It is quite clear from her petition that the armed guard that prevented her leaving - and turned her sanctuary into a prison - had been put there by King Edward himself, who had already granted her lands to Clarence. Was this simply because George and Richard didn't want her to have her lands back? Was King Edward that much of a wimp that he couldn't stand up to them?
Remember that the Countess was the daughter of Henry VI's tutor. Whilst it is true that she and her husband ended up backing the Yorkist clsim because they were forced into opposition by Somerset's designs on her property, it would have been a much easier and more natural transition for Richard Neville than it was for his wife (and even he didn't take that route until after losing Henry VI at St Albans). My suspicion is that Anne Beauchamp had never been entirely comfortable with the deposition of Henry VI. Remember, in 1485, when she petitioned parliament again, unsuccessfully, fo5r the return of her lands, she assured Tudor that she "had ever loved" Henry VI. I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet. And, fankly, there is nothing in her petition, pitiful though it is, to suggest that she had disapproved of her husband's actions.

Richard couldn't have got the Countess out of sanctuary until Edward agreed. And she did leave sanctuary before the division of her lands in 1474.
In May 1473 (seemingly 7 months after the rejection of the Countess' petition by parliament) Richard was in Nottingham with King Edward to sort out the ground rules for his relationship with the Earl of Northumberland. This is probably when he got permission from the King to remove the Counctess from sanctuary, because by the end of the month Tyrell went to fetch her. Another commentator at the time believed that "the King hath restored the Countess of Warwick to all her inheritance, and she have granted it unto my Lord of Gloucester, with whom she is." John Paston had heard rumours that Clarence was not agreed to the deal.
Some time before the break-up of that Parliament on 9th May 1474 the parliamentary division of the lands between Clarence and Gloucester was agreed. It seems to have been in 1474, after Clarence had been brought to heel by the confiscation of his lands.
Wihout being a fly on the wall it is impossible to judge whether there was any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not. His draconian action against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary suggests to me that he viewed her as a traitor.
Marie



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> until the deed was done.
>
> I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
>
> http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> ck-wife-widow/
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
> the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
> along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
>
> > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
>
> So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> before or after Richard's death?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin/ Genealogy

2012-09-25 00:08:29
ellrosa1452
Hi Marie

It was a long shot but worth a look as there might have been a death depending on how long either had lived and, of course, they had been recorded. I'll look into the wills. Thanks.
Elaine

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Elaine,
>
> There is no point looking on the IGI for 15th century marriages because parish registers didn't start until the 1530s. The main evidence for Mistress Shore's marriage to Thomas Lynom/Lyneham is in her parents' wills.
>
> 1) Her father's will (written September 1487):
> "Also I bequeth to Thomas Lyneham gentilman xx s. to Elizabeth lineham my doughter a bed of Arras with the Silour testour and cortayns a stayned cloth of mary magdalene and martha Also I bequeth to Julyan Lyneham xl s." There is more, but that's the main bit. Lynom was also a witness and named as one of the overseers.
> Incidentally, Julian was always a girl's name in 15th century England so far as I can make out.
>
> 2) Her mother's will (written December 1488):
> "And of this my Laste will and testament I make and ordeigne my sonnes Thomas Lyneham sir John Lamberd John Lamberd and Robert Lambert myne Executours".
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> > Elaine
> >
> > ---
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 00:11:33
b.eileen25
Annette and Phillipa on BBCNewsnight....Excellent!...You know...I think at last the message is going to get through...

And Marie....excellents posts..again.....you always manage to make me feel totally inadequate :0) Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Karen,
>
> I think it's important not to imagine the Countess wmust have been an innocent child just because she was in a sticky position after Tewkesbury. It is quite clear from her petition that the armed guard that prevented her leaving - and turned her sanctuary into a prison - had been put there by King Edward himself, who had already granted her lands to Clarence. Was this simply because George and Richard didn't want her to have her lands back? Was King Edward that much of a wimp that he couldn't stand up to them?
> Remember that the Countess was the daughter of Henry VI's tutor. Whilst it is true that she and her husband ended up backing the Yorkist clsim because they were forced into opposition by Somerset's designs on her property, it would have been a much easier and more natural transition for Richard Neville than it was for his wife (and even he didn't take that route until after losing Henry VI at St Albans). My suspicion is that Anne Beauchamp had never been entirely comfortable with the deposition of Henry VI. Remember, in 1485, when she petitioned parliament again, unsuccessfully, fo5r the return of her lands, she assured Tudor that she "had ever loved" Henry VI. I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet. And, fankly, there is nothing in her petition, pitiful though it is, to suggest that she had disapproved of her husband's actions.
>
> Richard couldn't have got the Countess out of sanctuary until Edward agreed. And she did leave sanctuary before the division of her lands in 1474.
> In May 1473 (seemingly 7 months after the rejection of the Countess' petition by parliament) Richard was in Nottingham with King Edward to sort out the ground rules for his relationship with the Earl of Northumberland. This is probably when he got permission from the King to remove the Counctess from sanctuary, because by the end of the month Tyrell went to fetch her. Another commentator at the time believed that "the King hath restored the Countess of Warwick to all her inheritance, and she have granted it unto my Lord of Gloucester, with whom she is." John Paston had heard rumours that Clarence was not agreed to the deal.
> Some time before the break-up of that Parliament on 9th May 1474 the parliamentary division of the lands between Clarence and Gloucester was agreed. It seems to have been in 1474, after Clarence had been brought to heel by the confiscation of his lands.
> Wihout being a fly on the wall it is impossible to judge whether there was any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not. His draconian action against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary suggests to me that he viewed her as a traitor.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> > where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> > shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> > been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> > until the deed was done.
> >
> > I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> > in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
> >
> > http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> > ck-wife-widow/
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > Book
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
> > the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> > Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
> > along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> > possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> > sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> > everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
> >
> > > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> > parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> > hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> > Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> > the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> > didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> > wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> > treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> > sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> > Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> > mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
> >
> > So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> > of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> > before or after Richard's death?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 00:38:33
fayre rose
there is a particularily good bio for anne at.
http://www.richard111.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
 
anne was no slouch at protecting her "property" including excluding her sisters
margaret, eleanor and elizabeth via technicalities from inheriting from their father.
she used her manipulative ability with h6 to exclude her half sisters from inheriting and even had their appeal put down.
 
with anne's father's will it was clear he wanted ALL his daughters to inherit equally. anne however, was not willing to share. i find her to be fairly repugnant as an individual from what i have read about her.
 
she plays the victim well, but has no problem profiting from manipulation. the letters she wrote to everyone and anyone are indictiave to me that she used contacts to "make" things go her way. contacting jacquetta, former duchess of bedford to help plead her case indicates she was well connected to the red rose. i'm surprised (not) that margaret beaufort wasn't one of her contacts, believe they were cousins, but i'd need to check that out... but then margaret wasn't much of a "player" in the 1470's.
 
however, anne may well have played a solidly good role in "making" the marriages of her daughter isobel and also that of anne to prince edward.
 
at the time of warwick's death she was travelling with margaret d'anjou's contingent.  where upon learning of the turn in the battle, she then fled her for sanctuary. anne was a warrior women who used "words" as her sword. she cut down her sisters, she "sold" her daughters..anything was up for offer to gain in power, wealth and influence.
 
clarence would have known just exactly how much the countess could "work" her contacts. i'm not saying that clarence didn't have his hand in working against his brother/s too. if warwick's rebellion had succeeded george stood profit significantly. he too played both sides of the fence. perhaps a trick he learned from his mother in law over the many years of association he had had with her.
 
it failed both of them. but it also gave him insider information with regards to lady warwick. richard also had life experience with the grand dame. their experienced insight would have been shared with e4. it is very likely the marriages of the plantagenet brothers to the warwick sisters saved anne beauchamp's life from total ruin and isolation. she would have been blacklisted and totally forgotten locked away in a convent.
 
enter richard to compassionately contain his aggitating mother in law.
 
powerful medieval women were not the victims that later generations tend to portray. these women were dynamic behind the scenes players. they knew how to play the game and to exhert control over their destinies. the adage of ..behind every successful man is a woman seems to hold pretty darn true in the 15thC.

cari
--- On Mon, 9/24/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Monday, September 24, 2012, 12:53 PM



 



Carol

The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
until the deed was done.

I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
ck-wife-widow/

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>

> I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.

Carol responds:

As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)

So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
before or after Richard's death?

Carol










Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 00:46:02
ellrosa1452
Karen
>>snip
I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet.

I think there were many more reasons for Warwick's defection. If Edward held her to blame might it not be projected blame onto the Countess for his own actions in marrying Elizabeth Woodville and subsequently showing Warwick who was boss and that he had no need of Warwick anymore. For someone with Warwick's pride and ambition that must have been a bitter pill to swallow. He was effectively finished as a courtier/soldier/man of influence. Edward was a master at self delusion. I can't remember who it was he said this to but recalling Towton, he put forward a different version as regards the treatment of prisoners and how he ensured the dead and injured were sympathetically treated. This was not the case at all but he was creating a different version which showed him in a more sympathetic light.
And, although Salisbury, Warwick's father, was allianced with York, not all the Nevilles were Yorkists. And there was a precedence in changing sides.
Elaine

--- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Annette and Phillipa on BBCNewsnight....Excellent!...You know...I think at last the message is going to get through...
>
> And Marie....excellents posts..again.....you always manage to make me feel totally inadequate :0) Eileen
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I think it's important not to imagine the Countess wmust have been an innocent child just because she was in a sticky position after Tewkesbury. It is quite clear from her petition that the armed guard that prevented her leaving - and turned her sanctuary into a prison - had been put there by King Edward himself, who had already granted her lands to Clarence. Was this simply because George and Richard didn't want her to have her lands back? Was King Edward that much of a wimp that he couldn't stand up to them?
> > Remember that the Countess was the daughter of Henry VI's tutor. Whilst it is true that she and her husband ended up backing the Yorkist clsim because they were forced into opposition by Somerset's designs on her property, it would have been a much easier and more natural transition for Richard Neville than it was for his wife (and even he didn't take that route until after losing Henry VI at St Albans). My suspicion is that Anne Beauchamp had never been entirely comfortable with the deposition of Henry VI. Remember, in 1485, when she petitioned parliament again, unsuccessfully, fo5r the return of her lands, she assured Tudor that she "had ever loved" Henry VI. I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet. And, fankly, there is nothing in her petition, pitiful though it is, to suggest that she had disapproved of her husband's actions.
> >
> > Richard couldn't have got the Countess out of sanctuary until Edward agreed. And she did leave sanctuary before the division of her lands in 1474.
> > In May 1473 (seemingly 7 months after the rejection of the Countess' petition by parliament) Richard was in Nottingham with King Edward to sort out the ground rules for his relationship with the Earl of Northumberland. This is probably when he got permission from the King to remove the Counctess from sanctuary, because by the end of the month Tyrell went to fetch her. Another commentator at the time believed that "the King hath restored the Countess of Warwick to all her inheritance, and she have granted it unto my Lord of Gloucester, with whom she is." John Paston had heard rumours that Clarence was not agreed to the deal.
> > Some time before the break-up of that Parliament on 9th May 1474 the parliamentary division of the lands between Clarence and Gloucester was agreed. It seems to have been in 1474, after Clarence had been brought to heel by the confiscation of his lands.
> > Wihout being a fly on the wall it is impossible to judge whether there was any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not. His draconian action against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary suggests to me that he viewed her as a traitor.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> > > where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> > > shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> > > been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> > > until the deed was done.
> > >
> > > I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> > > in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
> > >
> > > http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> > > ck-wife-widow/
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > > Book
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
> > > the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> > > Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
> > > along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> > > possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> > > sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> > > everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
> > >
> > > > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> > > parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> > > hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> > > Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> > > the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> > > didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> > > wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> > > treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> > > sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> > > Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> > > mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
> > >
> > > So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> > > of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> > > before or after Richard's death?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Henry VI's mother

2012-09-25 01:25:09
justcarol67
david rayner wrote:
>
> It's been rumoured that Catherine had a fling with the Duke of Somerset before hitching up with Owen, and that through that union the Tudor dynasty were really Plantagenets after all. 
>
> Prince Edward of Lancaster may also have been a secret Beaufort (although there are plenty of other candidates); how I wish we could get hold of DNA samples from all these folk.

Carol responds:

I hadn't heard about the Tudors being secret Beauforts. Sounds incestuous given that the dukes of Somerset, John and Edmund, were Margaret Beaufort's brothers and the first Earl of Somerset was her father.

Edward of Lancaster as a not-so-secret Beaufort is another matter altogether. I'm pretty sure that it was his mother, Margaret of Anjou, who was rumored to have had a fling with the Duke of somerset (John Beaufort). Warwick (and others?) questioned Lancaster's paternity when he was alive. Who knows? Maybe that's where George got the idea of questioning Edward's.

I agree about the DNA samples, though, or just an examination of the bones to determine the cause of death of a number of these people (Anne Neville and Edward IV, for starters. And Clarence. Could forensic scientists determine whether he really drowned in a butt of malmsey?

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 02:16:05
justcarol67
Marie wrote:
>
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> This is the full text (ref British Library MS Cotton Julius BXII, folios 317-8), one of a collection of documents once clearly in Richard's keeping. It is not a letter really, but a petition to parliament. Since it was not passed it can't be found in thee Parliament Rolls. The transcription is my own.
<snip text>

Carol responds:

Thanks very much, Marie. I've copied it to Word, complete with the citation. Interesting that it was in Richard's keeping. Maybe reading it (and/or her letter to him) prompted him to take the countess out of sanctuary so that she could live at home with him and Anne even if he couldn't (and wouldn't want to) restore her lands? He might have been trying to make it up to her as best he could by taking her out of the "strayte kepyng of her persone" that Edward had imposed upon her--or if you prefer, it could have been a salve to his conscience to let her live at Middleham. No one else that she wrote to (Edward, George, their sisters, their mother, Elizabeth Woodville, her mother) seems to have shown her even that much kindness or consideration. They treated her as if she really were dead as opposed to legally dead. Richard's action reminds me of his reburial of Henry VI where he seems to be trying to atone for his part in carrying out Edward's orders (assuming that he was even involved). He can't change the circumstances (which have, in any case, benefited him), but he wants to do *something* to atone for it.

In any case, it seems that the countess stopped petitioning Parliament and writing all those letters once she went to live at Middleham--where she must have continued to live once Richard became king.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 03:24:46
Karen Clark
Marie

I'm the last person to imagine the Countess as an innocent child. I do
suggest you read my blog post on her.

Where do you base your suspicion that she wasn't entirely comfortable with
the deposition of Henry VI, and that Edward held her to blame for anything?
I haven't come across anything that suggests she supported anyone but her
husband. I believe the Countess's own words rather than half a sentence in
the Paston letters. They are a great resource (particularly regarding
various rumour) but were rarely first hand accounts. The Countess's letter
is very much a first hand account. In that letter, she declares herself to
be a loyal subject of Edward IV, so of course later she told Henry VII what
she thought he wanted to hear! She was an astute woman from the little
that's known of her.

She was prevented from leaving sanctuary for some time. My point wasn't so
much about who gave the order to keep her that, but that she shouldn't have
been kept there against her will.

"any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence
and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not."

Gloucester was as deep in this as Clarence or Edward. He wasn't an innocent
youngster on the sidelines who had no choice but to go along with big
brother.

"His draconian action against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary
suggests to me that [Edward] viewed her as a traitor"

He may well have done. There is a hint of something like this in her letter
to parliament. But she was never openly accused, never brought to trial and
never attained. Nor was her dead husband. And Gloucester was in it up to his
neck, as was Clarence. Their actions were given the veneer of legality
through an act of parliament, but they cannot be said to have been in the
spirit of the law. As with Warwick, York, Oxford, Edward IV and others, I
can find a good deal to admire in Richard; but also like them, I recognise
the things he did that weren't particularly admirable.

Karen


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:09:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book







Karen,

I think it's important not to imagine the Countess wmust have been an
innocent child just because she was in a sticky position after Tewkesbury.
It is quite clear from her petition that the armed guard that prevented her
leaving - and turned her sanctuary into a prison - had been put there by
King Edward himself, who had already granted her lands to Clarence. Was this
simply because George and Richard didn't want her to have her lands back?
Was King Edward that much of a wimp that he couldn't stand up to them?
Remember that the Countess was the daughter of Henry VI's tutor. Whilst it
is true that she and her husband ended up backing the Yorkist clsim because
they were forced into opposition by Somerset's designs on her property, it
would have been a much easier and more natural transition for Richard
Neville than it was for his wife (and even he didn't take that route until
after losing Henry VI at St Albans). My suspicion is that Anne Beauchamp had
never been entirely comfortable with the deposition of Henry VI. Remember,
in 1485, when she petitioned parliament again, unsuccessfully, fo5r the
return of her lands, she assured Tudor that she "had ever loved" Henry VI. I
suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection
to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet. And, fankly, there is
nothing in her petition, pitiful though it is, to suggest that she had
disapproved of her husband's actions.

Richard couldn't have got the Countess out of sanctuary until Edward agreed.
And she did leave sanctuary before the division of her lands in 1474.
In May 1473 (seemingly 7 months after the rejection of the Countess'
petition by parliament) Richard was in Nottingham with King Edward to sort
out the ground rules for his relationship with the Earl of Northumberland.
This is probably when he got permission from the King to remove the
Counctess from sanctuary, because by the end of the month Tyrell went to
fetch her. Another commentator at the time believed that "the King hath
restored the Countess of Warwick to all her inheritance, and she have
granted it unto my Lord of Gloucester, with whom she is." John Paston had
heard rumours that Clarence was not agreed to the deal.
Some time before the break-up of that Parliament on 9th May 1474 the
parliamentary division of the lands between Clarence and Gloucester was
agreed. It seems to have been in 1474, after Clarence had been brought to
heel by the confiscation of his lands.
Wihout being a fly on the wall it is impossible to judge whether there was
any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence
and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not. His draconian action
against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary suggests to me that he viewed
her as a traitor.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> until the deed was done.
>
> I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
>
> http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> ck-wife-widow/
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry
for
> the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just
go
> along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
>
> > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
>
> So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> before or after Richard's death?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 03:41:55
Karen Clark
Cari

The Warwicks certainly did fight for everything they could get, including
(as you say) much they weren't entitled to. But it wasn't inheritance
directly from Richard Beauchamp' that was important in the end, but from
Anne's full brother, Henry. Anne's half sisters were stiffed, no doubt about
that!

She wrote a good many letters from Sanctuary to as many women as she could
think of, including the very young Elizabeth of York. I don't think her
choices of recipients indicate anything but her desperation. If you've read
her letter to parliament, you'll see that she wasn't 'playing the victim'
but asserting her rights.

All noble parents (all of them) did their best to find good marriages for
their children (not just their daughters). Very few people married for love.
Suggesting that she (or any other mother of her time and class) 'sold' her
daughters into marriage is to see this through 21st century eyes. Isobel and
Anne were given spectacular marriages. One to a duke, the other to a Prince
of Wales her father was working to restore to his birthright.

Warwick's rebellion did succeed, for a time at least, and George was richly
rewarded. But when push came to shove, he chose his brothers over his wife's
family.

The argument that the Countess would have been kept in sanctuary, or forced
into a nunnery, had Richard not 'rescued' her is akin to someone holding a
hair dryer over a bath then telling the person in the bath that they've
saved their lives by not dropping it. If the Countess was suspected of
treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
an 'inheritance' for her daughters.

As I said earlier, I am the last person to believe the Countess of Warwick
was a weak willed pawn or victim. (Neither were her daughters.) She was with
her husband every step of the way. Philippa Gregory chose to portray her as
a scheming coldhearted mother who gets her comeuppance. I don't believe she
was that either. We don't live in a world (and never have) of black and
white Heroes and Villains.

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book








there is a particularily good bio for anne at.
http://www.richard111.com/anne_beauchamp.htm

anne was no slouch at protecting her "property" including excluding her
sisters
margaret, eleanor and elizabeth via technicalities from inheriting from
their father.
she used her manipulative ability with h6 to exclude her half sisters from
inheriting and even had their appeal put down.

with anne's father's will it was clear he wanted ALL his daughters to
inherit equally. anne however, was not willing to share. i find her to be
fairly repugnant as an individual from what i have read about her.

she plays the victim well, but has no problem profiting from manipulation.
the letters she wrote to everyone and anyone are indictiave to me that she
used contacts to "make" things go her way. contacting jacquetta, former
duchess of bedford to help plead her case indicates she was well connected
to the red rose. i'm surprised (not) that margaret beaufort wasn't one of
her contacts, believe they were cousins, but i'd need to check that out...
but then margaret wasn't much of a "player" in the 1470's.

however, anne may well have played a solidly good role in "making" the
marriages of her daughter isobel and also that of anne to prince edward.

at the time of warwick's death she was travelling with margaret d'anjou's
contingent. where upon learning of the turn in the battle, she then fled
her for sanctuary. anne was a warrior women who used "words" as her sword.
she cut down her sisters, she "sold" her daughters..anything was up for
offer to gain in power, wealth and influence.

clarence would have known just exactly how much the countess could "work"
her contacts. i'm not saying that clarence didn't have his hand in working
against his brother/s too. if warwick's rebellion had succeeded george stood
profit significantly. he too played both sides of the fence. perhaps a trick
he learned from his mother in law over the many years of association he had
had with her.

it failed both of them. but it also gave him insider information with
regards to lady warwick. richard also had life experience with the grand
dame. their experienced insight would have been shared with e4. it is very
likely the marriages of the plantagenet brothers to the warwick sisters
saved anne beauchamp's life from total ruin and isolation. she would have
been blacklisted and totally forgotten locked away in a convent.

enter richard to compassionately contain his aggitating mother in law.

powerful medieval women were not the victims that later generations tend to
portray. these women were dynamic behind the scenes players. they knew how
to play the game and to exhert control over their destinies. the adage of
..behind every successful man is a woman seems to hold pretty darn true in
the 15thC.

cari
--- On Mon, 9/24/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, September 24, 2012, 12:53 PM



Carol

The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
until the deed was done.

I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
ck-wife-widow/

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just
go
along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham,
or
possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of
a
sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>

> I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end.
It's
hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to
her.

Carol responds:

As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)

So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
before or after Richard's death?

Carol













Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 03:43:34
Karen Clark
Elaine

The quote you started with ("I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for
his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at
Barnet.") didn't come from me. I don't believe this to be true at all.

Karen

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:46:01 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Karen
>>snip
I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's
defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet.

I think there were many more reasons for Warwick's defection. If Edward
held her to blame might it not be projected blame onto the Countess for his
own actions in marrying Elizabeth Woodville and subsequently showing
Warwick who was boss and that he had no need of Warwick anymore. For
someone with Warwick's pride and ambition that must have been a bitter pill
to swallow. He was effectively finished as a courtier/soldier/man of
influence. Edward was a master at self delusion. I can't remember who it
was he said this to but recalling Towton, he put forward a different version
as regards the treatment of prisoners and how he ensured the dead and
injured were sympathetically treated. This was not the case at all but he
was creating a different version which showed him in a more sympathetic
light.
And, although Salisbury, Warwick's father, was allianced with York, not all
the Nevilles were Yorkists. And there was a precedence in changing sides.
Elaine






Re: Henry VI's mother

2012-09-25 10:18:13
Johanne Tournier
Hi, Carol 

No, it's not too detailed  I'll just have to peruse it a couple of times for it all to sink in. J This stuff is important background to set the stage for Richard versus Henry. Many times I've heard people mention that Henry's claim to the crown was quite shaky  and you've provided the details to explain just how shaky it was. Fascinating!



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Henry VI's mother






Johanne Tournier wrote:
> <snip> Is it absolutely certain that Cecily was referring to Margaret Beaufort, and not, say, Henry VIâ¬"s mother? (I donâ¬"t know anything about the latter lady, and of course, she may have been deceased for years. Itâ¬"s just a thought.)

Carol responds:

I think we've answered most of your other questions, but this one got left by the wayside. Henry VI's mother was Catherine of Valois, daughter of the French King Charles VI and wife of the Lancastrian King Henry V (of Agincourt fame). When Henry V died, leaving Henry VI as his infant heir, the French-born queen was rejected as regent (being female and French) but given a role in her son's upbringing. She was forbidden to marry without the king's consent--a bit hard to obtain considering that he was a little child.

Anyway, Catherine left the court and either secretly married or had a long-lasting affair with a minstrel named Owen Tudor, father of Edmund Tudor, father of the future Henry VII. I would go into more detail, but I don't know how much you want to know. In any case, Catherine died in 1437, long before Richard III or Henry VII was even born.
[Johanne Tournier] <snip>



Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 11:04:53
mariewalsh2003
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> I'm the last person to imagine the Countess as an innocent child. I do
> suggest you read my blog post on her.
>
> Where do you base your suspicion that she wasn't entirely comfortable with
> the deposition of Henry VI,


On her background, her statement to Henry VII's parliament, and the way she extolled her father's connection with Henry VI via the Beauchamp Pageant. Also her manor (and indeed birthplace) of Caversham was found at the Dissolution to have amongst its religious relics a dagger that was claimed to be the weapon with which Henry VI had been killed.

and that Edward held her to blame for anything?

On her petition to parliament. Edward had had the Sanctuary surrounded by an armed guard. Edward had written to the Abbey demanding their co-operation with his imprisonment of her there. And she seeks in that petition to exonerate herself from charges of treason, arguing that technically she could be held responsible for nothing she did whilst her husband was alive because of the law of coverture, and that she had done nothing against Edward IV since she heard of her husband's death.



> I haven't come across anything that suggests she supported anyone but her
> husband. I believe the Countess's own words rather than half a sentence in
> the Paston letters. They are a great resource (particularly regarding
> various rumour) but were rarely first hand accounts. The Countess's letter
> is very much a first hand account. In that letter, she declares herself to
> be a loyal subject of Edward IV, so of course later she told Henry VII what
> she thought he wanted to hear! She was an astute woman from the little
> that's known of her.


Karen,. I obviously know that 'letter' (which, I repeat, is not a letter but a petition to parliament) - I gave you a letter by letter transcription of it in a separate post. Of course she declared herself a loyal subject of Edward IV in 1472.

>
> She was prevented from leaving sanctuary for some time. My point wasn't so
> much about who gave the order to keep her that, but that she shouldn't have
> been kept there against her will.

Who gave the order is crucial to interpretation of who was keeping her there against her will, though, isn't it?


>
> "any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence
> and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not."
>
> Gloucester was as deep in this as Clarence or Edward. He wasn't an innocent
> youngster on the sidelines who had no choice but to go along with big
> brother.

>
> "His draconian action against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary
> suggests to me that [Edward] viewed her as a traitor"
>
> He may well have done. There is a hint of something like this in her letter
> to parliament.

Far more than a hint!

But she was never openly accused, never brought to trial and
> never attained. Nor was her dead husband. And Gloucester was in it up to his
> neck, as was Clarence. Their actions were given the veneer of legality
> through an act of parliament, but they cannot be said to have been in the
> spirit of the law. As with Warwick, York, Oxford, Edward IV and others, I
> can find a good deal to admire in Richard; but also like them, I recognise
> the things he did that weren't particularly admirable.
>
> Karen
>

No, neither Warwick nor Montagu was attainted of treason in that parliament, and that was due to Clarence and Gloucester's special pleading. It was not at all common at that period for women to be attainted of treason, and Edward IV never did it, but he found other means of controlling ladies involved in sedition; generally the trick was to find a means of confiscating their property so they couldn't use their income to fund rebellion, and then shoehorn them into a nunnery.
I didn't say Gloucester was innocent, but we don't know what options Edward IV made available. Gloucester appears to have had to work to get the Countess out of Beaulieu, and there are many sources claiming that Clarence was trying to hold on to the entire Beauchamp inheritance for himself and Isabel (he had already been granted it, of course). If there was no possibilty of Edward agreeing to restore her lands to her, then for the Countess herself the better option would have been for Anne and her husband to get as big a share of them as possible because she was living with them and would have better access to the funds that way. I don't know that's what happened, but please don't take Michael Hicks' interpretations of history at face value - he has an agenda and his interpretations of legal issues are frequently simply wrong. I suggest that in the Clairvaux letter and the Beauchamp Pageant we have evidence that the Countess was still spending the money that was rightfully hers on luxury projects.
There are too many ambiguities for us to be able to confidently condemn Gloucester for acting out of sheer ruthless greed. A saint would have held out for the Countess' rights to the end, of course, so he wasn't a saint, but "in it up to his neck" - how can you know?

Marie




>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:09:24 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> I think it's important not to imagine the Countess wmust have been an
> innocent child just because she was in a sticky position after Tewkesbury.
> It is quite clear from her petition that the armed guard that prevented her
> leaving - and turned her sanctuary into a prison - had been put there by
> King Edward himself, who had already granted her lands to Clarence. Was this
> simply because George and Richard didn't want her to have her lands back?
> Was King Edward that much of a wimp that he couldn't stand up to them?
> Remember that the Countess was the daughter of Henry VI's tutor. Whilst it
> is true that she and her husband ended up backing the Yorkist clsim because
> they were forced into opposition by Somerset's designs on her property, it
> would have been a much easier and more natural transition for Richard
> Neville than it was for his wife (and even he didn't take that route until
> after losing Henry VI at St Albans). My suspicion is that Anne Beauchamp had
> never been entirely comfortable with the deposition of Henry VI. Remember,
> in 1485, when she petitioned parliament again, unsuccessfully, fo5r the
> return of her lands, she assured Tudor that she "had ever loved" Henry VI. I
> suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection
> to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet. And, fankly, there is
> nothing in her petition, pitiful though it is, to suggest that she had
> disapproved of her husband's actions.
>
> Richard couldn't have got the Countess out of sanctuary until Edward agreed.
> And she did leave sanctuary before the division of her lands in 1474.
> In May 1473 (seemingly 7 months after the rejection of the Countess'
> petition by parliament) Richard was in Nottingham with King Edward to sort
> out the ground rules for his relationship with the Earl of Northumberland.
> This is probably when he got permission from the King to remove the
> Counctess from sanctuary, because by the end of the month Tyrell went to
> fetch her. Another commentator at the time believed that "the King hath
> restored the Countess of Warwick to all her inheritance, and she have
> granted it unto my Lord of Gloucester, with whom she is." John Paston had
> heard rumours that Clarence was not agreed to the deal.
> Some time before the break-up of that Parliament on 9th May 1474 the
> parliamentary division of the lands between Clarence and Gloucester was
> agreed. It seems to have been in 1474, after Clarence had been brought to
> heel by the confiscation of his lands.
> Wihout being a fly on the wall it is impossible to judge whether there was
> any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence
> and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not. His draconian action
> against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary suggests to me that he viewed
> her as a traitor.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> > where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> > shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> > been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> > until the deed was done.
> >
> > I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> > in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
> >
> > http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> > ck-wife-widow/
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > Book
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry
> for
> > the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> > Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just
> go
> > along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> > possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> > sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> > everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
> >
> > > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> > parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> > hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> > Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> > the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> > didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> > wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> > treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> > sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> > Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> > mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
> >
> > So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> > of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> > before or after Richard's death?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 11:16:16
Johanne Tournier
For the record, it was *Marie* who wrote that in her post Mon 9/24/2012 7:09
PM. She was addressing it to Karen.



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:43 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book





Elaine

The quote you started with ("I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for
his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at
Barnet.") didn't come from me. I don't believe this to be true at all.

Karen

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...
<mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:46:01 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Karen
>>snip
I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's
defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet.

I think there were many more reasons for Warwick's defection. If Edward
held her to blame might it not be projected blame onto the Countess for his
own actions in marrying Elizabeth Woodville and subsequently showing
Warwick who was boss and that he had no need of Warwick anymore. For
someone with Warwick's pride and ambition that must have been a bitter pill
to swallow. He was effectively finished as a courtier/soldier/man of
influence. Edward was a master at self delusion. I can't remember who it
was he said this to but recalling Towton, he put forward a different version
as regards the treatment of prisoners and how he ensured the dead and
injured were sympathetically treated. This was not the case at all but he
was creating a different version which showed him in a more sympathetic
light.
And, although Salisbury, Warwick's father, was allianced with York, not all
the Nevilles were Yorkists. And there was a precedence in changing sides.
Elaine







Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-25 12:44:53
liz williams
So was Julian Thomas and Elizabeth's daughter?

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 19:50
Subject: Re: David Baldwin


 


Hi Elaine,

There is no point looking on the IGI for 15th century marriages because parish registers didn't start until the 1530s. The main evidence for Mistress Shore's marriage to Thomas Lynom/Lyneham is in her parents' wills.

1) Her father's will (written September 1487):
"Also I bequeth to Thomas Lyneham gentilman xx s. to Elizabeth lineham my doughter a bed of Arras with the Silour testour and cortayns a stayned cloth of mary magdalene and martha Also I bequeth to Julyan Lyneham xl s." There is more, but that's the main bit. Lynom was also a witness and named as one of the overseers.
Incidentally, Julian was always a girl's name in 15th century England so far as I can make out.

2) Her mother's will (written December 1488):
"And of this my Laste will and testament I make and ordeigne my sonnes Thomas Lyneham sir John Lamberd John Lamberd and Robert Lambert myne Executours".

Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> Elaine
>
> ---




Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-25 12:54:15
mariewalsh2003
It would seem so, but we don't know for sure. Thomas relocated to the Shropshire region a few years later, presumably taking Elizabeth with im. According to the DNB Thomas seems to have left a son (another Thomas, I think), but whether he was Elizabeth's or from an earlier marriage is far from clear.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> So was Julian Thomas and Elizabeth's daughter?
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 19:50
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>  
>
>
> Hi Elaine,
>
> There is no point looking on the IGI for 15th century marriages because parish registers didn't start until the 1530s. The main evidence for Mistress Shore's marriage to Thomas Lynom/Lyneham is in her parents' wills.
>
> 1) Her father's will (written September 1487):
> "Also I bequeth to Thomas Lyneham gentilman xx s. to Elizabeth lineham my doughter a bed of Arras with the Silour testour and cortayns a stayned cloth of mary magdalene and martha Also I bequeth to Julyan Lyneham xl s." There is more, but that's the main bit. Lynom was also a witness and named as one of the overseers.
> Incidentally, Julian was always a girl's name in 15th century England so far as I can make out.
>
> 2) Her mother's will (written December 1488):
> "And of this my Laste will and testament I make and ordeigne my sonnes Thomas Lyneham sir John Lamberd John Lamberd and Robert Lambert myne Executours".
>
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> > Elaine
> >
> > ---
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-25 14:09:54
Judy Thomson
"Julian" wasn't a common name in 15th C. England, period. Julian of Norwich (the mystic and a woman) allegedly assumed thatname from St. Julian Hospitaler, a male. But then neither was "Francis" very common until the 16th C. It bore the stigma of denoting "Frenchman" at that time. Yet, we have Francis Lovell. 

There was a Juliana Barnes who wrote the Book of Saint Albans (on hunting and terms of venery). Sometimes she is called just "Julian." Think of nuns and other religious who have taken on male saint's names (Sister Mary Patrick was one of my husband's grade school teachers, and he recalls others...Francis Xavier, for example, not Frances). So we can't absolutely say one way or the other.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Re: David Baldwin


 
So was Julian Thomas and Elizabeth's daughter?

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012, 19:50
Subject: Re: David Baldwin

 

Hi Elaine,

There is no point looking on the IGI for 15th century marriages because parish registers didn't start until the 1530s. The main evidence for Mistress Shore's marriage to Thomas Lynom/Lyneham is in her parents' wills.

1) Her father's will (written September 1487):
"Also I bequeth to Thomas Lyneham gentilman xx s. to Elizabeth lineham my doughter a bed of Arras with the Silour testour and cortayns a stayned cloth of mary magdalene and martha Also I bequeth to Julyan Lyneham xl s." There is more, but that's the main bit. Lynom was also a witness and named as one of the overseers.
Incidentally, Julian was always a girl's name in 15th century England so far as I can make out.

2) Her mother's will (written December 1488):
"And of this my Laste will and testament I make and ordeigne my sonnes Thomas Lyneham sir John Lamberd John Lamberd and Robert Lambert myne Executours".

Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> BTW I have tried to find a marriage and deaths for Jane or Elizabeth Shore/ Lynom and Thomas Lynom on the IGI and other genealogical sites to no avail.
> Elaine
>
> ---






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 14:21:58
Karen Clark
Marie

I'm going to take your last point first

"but "in it up to his neck" - how can you know?"

This is after you have confidently stated what you 'know' about the countess
of Warwick's loyalties. I can 'know' Richard was 'in it up to his neck'
using the same reasoning, the evidence is there, just as circumstantial and
just as open to interpretation. It makes no sense to me that Richard had no
choice but to accept what his brothers were stealing, partly on his behalf,
all the while begging them not to. All three of them were involved in the
theft.

" Of course she declared herself a loyal subject of Edward IV in 1472."

And of course she declared herself a loyal subject of Henry VII later.

"Far more than a hint!"

No, there's a hint. She speaks obliquely of 'trouble' and vague 'sinister
information', but doesn't make it clear. The Countess of Warwick's behaviour
throughout her marriage, and in the days immediately following Barnet, point
to where her first loyalties lay, and that was to her husband. It wouldn't
surprise me at all to find that she played some kind of role in it all
(possibly similar to her mother-in-law's in 1459), but there's no clue in
this letter (or petition of you prefer) of what that might be. So, a hint.

"No, neither Warwick nor Montagu was attainted of treason in that
parliament, and that was due to Clarence and Gloucester's special pleading."

The Warwicks weren't attainted because that would have made it impossible
for either Anne or Isobel to inherit their property and titles.
Interestingly, Montagu's widow wasn't stripped of her property and kept the
wardship of her son. One possible reason for this is that the laws of
inheritance wouldn't have worked in anyone's favour the way it did with the
countess of Warwick, so it wouldn't have been worth the bother. It only
worked with the countess of Warwick because the king's brothers were married
to her daughters. And I wonder, had the countess managed to present her case
to Edward in person, whether he'd have continued. I think that's a better
reason for keeping her locked away, that way he didn't have to face her.

"It was not at all common at that period for women to be attainted of
treason, and Edward IV never did it, but he found other means of controlling
ladies involved in sedition; generally the trick was to find a means of
confiscating their property so they couldn't use their income to fund
rebellion, and then shoehorn them into a nunnery."

Yes, I'm aware of this, Marie. Edward fully colluded in the forced handover
of Maud Stanhope's lands to Anthony Wydeville in return for pardon for her
third husband. (There's a whole lot more going on in that particular
transaction, but that's the gist of it.) And Gloucester himself intimidated
the widowed countess of Oxford into handing over her property. That this was
a habit for them doesn't excuse it.

"I don't know that's what happened, but please don't take Michael Hicks'
interpretations of history at face value - he has an agenda and his
interpretations of legal issues are frequently simply wrong"

I actually haven't cited Hicks in this discussion at all. The person who has
a better handle on the later life of the countess of Warwick is Pollard.

"I suggest that in the Clairvaux letter and the Beauchamp Pageant we have
evidence that the Countess was still spending the money that was rightfully
hers on luxury projects."

I've already mentioned the Middleham Jewel, which wasn't a cheap bit of tat.
Getting a generous allowance from the son-in-law who took part in having her
declared dead by parliament doesn't make it all better.

"There are too many ambiguities for us to be able to confidently condemn
Gloucester for acting out of sheer ruthless greed."

'sheer ruthless greed' aren't words I've used in this discussion. On the
other hand, he didn't go along with his brothers' plans in order to provide
a nice home for his mother-in-law. His interests were first and foremost in
himself.

Karen




From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:04:51 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

No, neither Warwick nor Montagu was attainted of treason in that parliament,
and that was due to Clarence and Gloucester's special pleading. It was not
at all common at that period for women to be attainted of treason, and
Edward IV never did it, but he found other means of controlling ladies
involved in sedition; generally the trick was to find a means of
confiscating their property so they couldn't use their income to fund
rebellion, and then shoehorn them into a nunnery.
I didn't say Gloucester was innocent, but we don't know what options Edward
IV made available. Gloucester appears to have had to work to get the
Countess out of Beaulieu, and there are many sources claiming that Clarence
was trying to hold on to the entire Beauchamp inheritance for himself and
Isabel (he had already been granted it, of course). If there was no
possibilty of Edward agreeing to restore her lands to her, then for the
Countess herself the better option would have been for Anne and her husband
to get as big a share of them as possible because she was living with them
and would have better access to the funds that way. I don't know that's what
happened, but please don't take Michael Hicks' interpretations of history at
face value - he has an agenda and his interpretations of legal issues are
frequently simply wrong. I suggest that in the Clairvaux letter and the
Beauchamp Pageant we have evidence that the Countess was still spending the
money that was rightfully hers on luxury projects.
There are too many ambiguities for us to be able to confidently condemn
Gloucester for acting out of sheer ruthless greed. A saint would have held
out for the Countess' rights to the end, of course, so he wasn't a saint,
but "in it up to his neck" - how can you know?



Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 15:57:12
ellrosa1452
Hi Karen

I apologise for attributing the comments to you.

The Beauchamp inheritance certainly caused a lot a of misery. And the Beauchamp women were a tough lot. Margaret, Richard Beauchamp's eldest daughter and natural inheritor pursued claims against rival claimants through the courts, Parliament and on the battlefield for many years. On one occasion she kept Lord Berkeley's wife, Isobel Mowbray as prisoner; she subsequently died. This was after Berkeley had captured one of Margaret's property and her son Lord Lisle, had captured Berkeley Castle. We are talking about women with powerful connections who were able to direct/affect? policy during the periods in question. She also had powerful associates such as the Duke of Somerset who was one of her brothers-in-law. Incidentally, Margaret was the mother of Lady Eleanor Talbot/Butler. It's ironic how closely related all these players were.
Elaine

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine
>
> The quote you started with ("I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for
> his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at
> Barnet.") didn't come from me. I don't believe this to be true at all.
>
> Karen
>
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:46:01 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen
> >>snip
> I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's
> defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet.
>
> I think there were many more reasons for Warwick's defection. If Edward
> held her to blame might it not be projected blame onto the Countess for his
> own actions in marrying Elizabeth Woodville and subsequently showing
> Warwick who was boss and that he had no need of Warwick anymore. For
> someone with Warwick's pride and ambition that must have been a bitter pill
> to swallow. He was effectively finished as a courtier/soldier/man of
> influence. Edward was a master at self delusion. I can't remember who it
> was he said this to but recalling Towton, he put forward a different version
> as regards the treatment of prisoners and how he ensured the dead and
> injured were sympathetically treated. This was not the case at all but he
> was creating a different version which showed him in a more sympathetic
> light.
> And, although Salisbury, Warwick's father, was allianced with York, not all
> the Nevilles were Yorkists. And there was a precedence in changing sides.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 16:18:14
Karen Clark
Elaine

No need to apologise, I just wanted to clear up any confusion. I know that
Michael Hicks isn't well respected around these parts, and some of his work
is less than it could be, but he wrote a very interesting article on family
connections. Cement or Solvent? Kinship and Politics in Late Medieval
England: The Case of the Nevilles. In the case of the Beauchamp sisters,
kinship certainly wasn't any kind of cement!

There were a lot of strong women around at the time, which is one of the
reasons I shudder every time I see or hear the word 'pawn'.

Karen

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:57:10 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Hi Karen

I apologise for attributing the comments to you.

The Beauchamp inheritance certainly caused a lot a of misery. And the
Beauchamp women were a tough lot. Margaret, Richard Beauchamp's eldest
daughter and natural inheritor pursued claims against rival claimants
through the courts, Parliament and on the battlefield for many years. On
one occasion she kept Lord Berkeley's wife, Isobel Mowbray as prisoner; she
subsequently died. This was after Berkeley had captured one of Margaret's
property and her son Lord Lisle, had captured Berkeley Castle. We are
talking about women with powerful connections who were able to
direct/affect? policy during the periods in question. She also had
powerful associates such as the Duke of Somerset who was one of her
brothers-in-law. Incidentally, Margaret was the mother of Lady Eleanor
Talbot/Butler. It's ironic how closely related all these players were.
Elaine






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 17:36:25
fayre rose
karen
you are entitled to your opinions. however, some parents were very rigorous in their social climbing and making the right sort of connections via marriage. anne beauchamp is one of those sort of people.
 
i am very cognizant that it was uncommon for the marriage to be a love match, but more of a contractual agreement between families.

not all traitors were attainted, nor were they even specifically labelled as traitors. lady warwick lost control of her lands/property. her daughters were married to the king's brothers. the males now controlled the females and their inheritance.
 
had anne neville not married richard. lady warwick, former countess would have been shut away for the remainder of her life. the last of the plantagenets knew the woman and her capabilities.
 
gossip then, like now was known among the inner circles. i would not be surprised to learn that cecily and richard and the rest of her older york children were very aware of the aggressive nature of anne beauchamp. to understand this prinicple, all you need to have done in your present day lifetime, is to have lived in a small rural community.
 
you know who you can trust, and who will undercut you. who were hard workers and who just simply profitted of the backs of other's work. office politics also works in the same way.
 
our modern "feudal" system can be witnessed by watching the "game play" of the mega and international corporations.
 
roslyn
--- On Mon, 9/24/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Monday, September 24, 2012, 10:41 PM



 



Cari

The Warwicks certainly did fight for everything they could get, including
(as you say) much they weren't entitled to. But it wasn't inheritance
directly from Richard Beauchamp' that was important in the end, but from
Anne's full brother, Henry. Anne's half sisters were stiffed, no doubt about
that!

She wrote a good many letters from Sanctuary to as many women as she could
think of, including the very young Elizabeth of York. I don't think her
choices of recipients indicate anything but her desperation. If you've read
her letter to parliament, you'll see that she wasn't 'playing the victim'
but asserting her rights.

All noble parents (all of them) did their best to find good marriages for
their children (not just their daughters). Very few people married for love.
Suggesting that she (or any other mother of her time and class) 'sold' her
daughters into marriage is to see this through 21st century eyes. Isobel and
Anne were given spectacular marriages. One to a duke, the other to a Prince
of Wales her father was working to restore to his birthright.

Warwick's rebellion did succeed, for a time at least, and George was richly
rewarded. But when push came to shove, he chose his brothers over his wife's
family.

The argument that the Countess would have been kept in sanctuary, or forced
into a nunnery, had Richard not 'rescued' her is akin to someone holding a
hair dryer over a bath then telling the person in the bath that they've
saved their lives by not dropping it. If the Countess was suspected of
treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
an 'inheritance' for her daughters.

As I said earlier, I am the last person to believe the Countess of Warwick
was a weak willed pawn or victim. (Neither were her daughters.) She was with
her husband every step of the way. Philippa Gregory chose to portray her as
a scheming coldhearted mother who gets her comeuppance. I don't believe she
was that either. We don't live in a world (and never have) of black and
white Heroes and Villains.

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book

there is a particularily good bio for anne at.
http://www.richard111.com/anne_beauchamp.htm

anne was no slouch at protecting her "property" including excluding her
sisters
margaret, eleanor and elizabeth via technicalities from inheriting from
their father.
she used her manipulative ability with h6 to exclude her half sisters from
inheriting and even had their appeal put down.

with anne's father's will it was clear he wanted ALL his daughters to
inherit equally. anne however, was not willing to share. i find her to be
fairly repugnant as an individual from what i have read about her.

she plays the victim well, but has no problem profiting from manipulation.
the letters she wrote to everyone and anyone are indictiave to me that she
used contacts to "make" things go her way. contacting jacquetta, former
duchess of bedford to help plead her case indicates she was well connected
to the red rose. i'm surprised (not) that margaret beaufort wasn't one of
her contacts, believe they were cousins, but i'd need to check that out...
but then margaret wasn't much of a "player" in the 1470's.

however, anne may well have played a solidly good role in "making" the
marriages of her daughter isobel and also that of anne to prince edward.

at the time of warwick's death she was travelling with margaret d'anjou's
contingent. where upon learning of the turn in the battle, she then fled
her for sanctuary. anne was a warrior women who used "words" as her sword.
she cut down her sisters, she "sold" her daughters..anything was up for
offer to gain in power, wealth and influence.

clarence would have known just exactly how much the countess could "work"
her contacts. i'm not saying that clarence didn't have his hand in working
against his brother/s too. if warwick's rebellion had succeeded george stood
profit significantly. he too played both sides of the fence. perhaps a trick
he learned from his mother in law over the many years of association he had
had with her.

it failed both of them. but it also gave him insider information with
regards to lady warwick. richard also had life experience with the grand
dame. their experienced insight would have been shared with e4. it is very
likely the marriages of the plantagenet brothers to the warwick sisters
saved anne beauchamp's life from total ruin and isolation. she would have
been blacklisted and totally forgotten locked away in a convent.

enter richard to compassionately contain his aggitating mother in law.

powerful medieval women were not the victims that later generations tend to
portray. these women were dynamic behind the scenes players. they knew how
to play the game and to exhert control over their destinies. the adage of
..behind every successful man is a woman seems to hold pretty darn true in
the 15thC.

cari
--- On Mon, 9/24/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, September 24, 2012, 12:53 PM

Carol

The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
until the deed was done.

I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.

http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
ck-wife-widow/

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just
go
along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham,
or
possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of
a
sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>

> I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end.
It's
hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to
her.

Carol responds:

As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)

So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
before or after Richard's death?

Carol














Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 17:39:20
fayre rose
another spot on summation by marie. one of the top ricardian researchers on this forum, even if we don't always agree.

--- On Mon, 9/24/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Monday, September 24, 2012, 6:09 PM



 




Karen,

I think it's important not to imagine the Countess wmust have been an innocent child just because she was in a sticky position after Tewkesbury. It is quite clear from her petition that the armed guard that prevented her leaving - and turned her sanctuary into a prison - had been put there by King Edward himself, who had already granted her lands to Clarence. Was this simply because George and Richard didn't want her to have her lands back? Was King Edward that much of a wimp that he couldn't stand up to them?
Remember that the Countess was the daughter of Henry VI's tutor. Whilst it is true that she and her husband ended up backing the Yorkist clsim because they were forced into opposition by Somerset's designs on her property, it would have been a much easier and more natural transition for Richard Neville than it was for his wife (and even he didn't take that route until after losing Henry VI at St Albans). My suspicion is that Anne Beauchamp had never been entirely comfortable with the deposition of Henry VI. Remember, in 1485, when she petitioned parliament again, unsuccessfully, fo5r the return of her lands, she assured Tudor that she "had ever loved" Henry VI. I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet. And, fankly, there is nothing in her petition, pitiful though it is, to suggest that she had disapproved of her husband's actions.

Richard couldn't have got the Countess out of sanctuary until Edward agreed. And she did leave sanctuary before the division of her lands in 1474.
In May 1473 (seemingly 7 months after the rejection of the Countess' petition by parliament) Richard was in Nottingham with King Edward to sort out the ground rules for his relationship with the Earl of Northumberland. This is probably when he got permission from the King to remove the Counctess from sanctuary, because by the end of the month Tyrell went to fetch her. Another commentator at the time believed that "the King hath restored the Countess of Warwick to all her inheritance, and she have granted it unto my Lord of Gloucester, with whom she is." John Paston had heard rumours that Clarence was not agreed to the deal.
Some time before the break-up of that Parliament on 9th May 1474 the parliamentary division of the lands between Clarence and Gloucester was agreed. It seems to have been in 1474, after Clarence had been brought to heel by the confiscation of his lands.
Wihout being a fly on the wall it is impossible to judge whether there was any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not. His draconian action against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary suggests to me that he viewed her as a traitor.
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> until the deed was done.
>
> I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
>
> http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> ck-wife-widow/
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
> the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
> along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
>
> > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
>
> So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> before or after Richard's death?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>








Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 17:59:17
Karen Clark
Roslyn, can you please point me to a source that shows the countess of
Warwick as a 'social climber'; a 'traitor' or 'aggressive'? There is so
little in the record about her, or her 'capabilities' that it's a bit of a
stretch to suggest she was some kind of arch-villain that Edward IV was so
afraid of he must lock her away for the rest of her life! This was about
money, titles and property. That's all it was about.The countess of Warwick
didn't 'lose control' of her lands and titles, they were taken from her.
Trying to find a way to blame her for this, rather than accepting that this
was one case where Richard didn't act in a particularly noble way, isn't
going to convince me. Vilifying the Countess of Warwick doesn't let Richard
off the hook. I try to be objective about history, even about the people I
admire. Richard doesn't get a free pass from me for actions that would be
criticised if carried out by another.

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book






karen
you are entitled to your opinions. however, some parents were very rigorous
in their social climbing and making the right sort of connections via
marriage. anne beauchamp is one of those sort of people.

i am very cognizant that it was uncommon for the marriage to be a love
match, but more of a contractual agreement between families.

not all traitors were attainted, nor were they even specifically labelled as
traitors. lady warwick lost control of her lands/property. her daughters
were married to the king's brothers. the males now controlled the females
and their inheritance.

had anne neville not married richard. lady warwick, former countess would
have been shut away for the remainder of her life. the last of the
plantagenets knew the woman and her capabilities.

gossip then, like now was known among the inner circles. i would not be
surprised to learn that cecily and richard and the rest of her older york
children were very aware of the aggressive nature of anne beauchamp. to
understand this prinicple, all you need to have done in your present day
lifetime, is to have lived in a small rural community.

you know who you can trust, and who will undercut you. who were hard workers
and who just simply profitted of the backs of other's work. office politics
also works in the same way.

our modern "feudal" system can be witnessed by watching the "game play" of
the mega and international corporations.

roslyn






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 18:33:11
mariewalsh2003
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Karen
> >>snip
> I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet.
>
> I think there were many more reasons for Warwick's defection. If Edward held her to blame might it not be projected blame onto the Countess for his own actions in marrying Elizabeth Woodville and subsequently showing Warwick who was boss and that he had no need of Warwick anymore.

Hi Eileen,
ld her to blame for what we KNOW did in supporting Warwick's treachery is clear. I must admit I was speculating that he may have gone further and scapegoated her as the main cause of WEarwick's defection, which actually seems to me to have been caused as much by Edward as by Warwick, and vice versa. There's a tendency to remember only the best aspects of people after they've died, and if Edward was looking back fondly and remorsefully on Warwick and Montagu in 1471/2 then he would have been forced to start casting about elsewhere for blame. Accepting his own culpability for things was maybe not Edward's forte (is it anybody's?) - eg he'd only killed Clarence because nobody tried hard enough to persuade him not to. His harsh treatment of the Countess of Warwick could certainly be explained that way.
Marie

For someone with Warwick's pride and ambition that must have been a bitter pill to swallow. He was effectively finished as a courtier/soldier/man of influence. Edward was a master at self delusion.

Indeed

I can't remember who it was he said this to but recalling Towton, he put forward a different version as regards the treatment of prisoners and how he ensured the dead and injured were sympathetically treated. This was not the case at all but he was creating a different version which showed him in a more sympathetic light.
> And, although Salisbury, Warwick's father, was allianced with York, not all the Nevilles were Yorkists. And there was a precedence in changing sides.
> Elaine




>
> --- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Annette and Phillipa on BBCNewsnight....Excellent!...You know...I think at last the message is going to get through...
> >
> > And Marie....excellents posts..again.....you always manage to make me feel totally inadequate :0) Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Karen,
> > >
> > > I think it's important not to imagine the Countess wmust have been an innocent child just because she was in a sticky position after Tewkesbury. It is quite clear from her petition that the armed guard that prevented her leaving - and turned her sanctuary into a prison - had been put there by King Edward himself, who had already granted her lands to Clarence. Was this simply because George and Richard didn't want her to have her lands back? Was King Edward that much of a wimp that he couldn't stand up to them?
> > > Remember that the Countess was the daughter of Henry VI's tutor. Whilst it is true that she and her husband ended up backing the Yorkist clsim because they were forced into opposition by Somerset's designs on her property, it would have been a much easier and more natural transition for Richard Neville than it was for his wife (and even he didn't take that route until after losing Henry VI at St Albans). My suspicion is that Anne Beauchamp had never been entirely comfortable with the deposition of Henry VI. Remember, in 1485, when she petitioned parliament again, unsuccessfully, fo5r the return of her lands, she assured Tudor that she "had ever loved" Henry VI. I suspect that Edward IV held her to blame for his cousin Warwick's defection to Lancaster, with its tragic consequences at Barnet. And, fankly, there is nothing in her petition, pitiful though it is, to suggest that she had disapproved of her husband's actions.
> > >
> > > Richard couldn't have got the Countess out of sanctuary until Edward agreed. And she did leave sanctuary before the division of her lands in 1474.
> > > In May 1473 (seemingly 7 months after the rejection of the Countess' petition by parliament) Richard was in Nottingham with King Edward to sort out the ground rules for his relationship with the Earl of Northumberland. This is probably when he got permission from the King to remove the Counctess from sanctuary, because by the end of the month Tyrell went to fetch her. Another commentator at the time believed that "the King hath restored the Countess of Warwick to all her inheritance, and she have granted it unto my Lord of Gloucester, with whom she is." John Paston had heard rumours that Clarence was not agreed to the deal.
> > > Some time before the break-up of that Parliament on 9th May 1474 the parliamentary division of the lands between Clarence and Gloucester was agreed. It seems to have been in 1474, after Clarence had been brought to heel by the confiscation of his lands.
> > > Wihout being a fly on the wall it is impossible to judge whether there was any chance of Edward IV restoring the Countess's lands to her if Clarence and Gloucester had agreed to that. I suspect not. His draconian action against her when she was in Beaulieu Sanctuary suggests to me that he viewed her as a traitor.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > > The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> > > > where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> > > > shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> > > > been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> > > > until the deed was done.
> > > >
> > > > I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> > > > in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
> > > >
> > > > http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> > > > ck-wife-widow/
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > Reply-To: <>
> > > > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> > > > To: <>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > > > Book
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
> > > > the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> > > > Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
> > > > along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> > > > possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> > > > sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> > > > everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> > > > parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> > > > hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> > > > Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> > > > the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> > > > didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> > > > wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> > > > treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> > > > sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> > > > Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> > > > mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
> > > >
> > > > So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> > > > of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> > > > before or after Richard's death?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Henry VI's mother

2012-09-25 18:43:32
justcarol67
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol â€"
>
> No, it’s not too detailed â€" I’ll just have to peruse it a couple of times for it all to sink in. J This stuff is important background to set the stage for “Richard versus Henry.” Many times I’ve heard people mention that Henry’s claim to the crown was quite shaky â€" and you’ve provided the details to explain just how shaky it was. Fascinating!

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Among the people who had a better claim than Henry Tudor to the English throne were Isabella of Spain and the king of Portugal, whose daughter Joanna Richard was planning to marry if he had won the Battle of Bosworth (with one of Queen Isabella's daughters as an alternate candidate). Either of those marriages would have resulted in a true union of the Houses of York and Lancaster, unlike Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York, which merely brought Yorkist blood back into the royal line (mingled with Beaufort blood, which Elizabeth also had from her grandmother Cecily's mother).

I was going to suggest looking at an online genealogical chart, but it's hard to find one focusing on Henry VII's ancestry precisely *because* his claim was so shaky. Most trees focus on his descendants. I did find one for the Welsh ancestors of Owen Tudor, but they have no bearing whatever on his "claim." Maybe someone else knows of one that clearly shows his *French" ancestry. I'd be interested in the closeness of Henry's relationship to Louis XI, the Spider King who played all the kings and nobles of Europe against each other and used Henry as one of his pawns.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 18:53:26
mariewalsh2003
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> . If the Countess was suspected of
> treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> an 'inheritance' for her daughters.

Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. This is pure Hicks. Edward already had confiscated her lands and put them into Clarence's hands. He could have put them into Richard's hands just as easily. %The 1474 settlement was no more secure than a royal grant as it was effected by an Act of Parliament that could have been repealed at any time (as indeed it was in 1487). In fact the 1474 settlement, in that it engineered an inheritance for Isabel and Anne, was better than confiscation from the Countess's point of view because it settled the lands on tyhe King's brothers AND their wives, the Countess's daughters, whereas the previous settlement had been on Clarence as an individual.
You are surely not blaming Edward for finding a way to punish her short of attainder - bearing in mind that the punishment for a female traitor was death by burning.


>
> As I said earlier, I am the last person to believe the Countess of Warwick
> was a weak willed pawn or victim. (Neither were her daughters.) She was with
> her husband every step of the way.

Every step of the way in his treason.

Philippa Gregory chose to portray her as
> a scheming coldhearted mother who gets her comeuppance. I don't believe she
> was that either. We don't live in a world (and never have) of black and
> white Heroes and Villains.

I don't, and I have never tried to portray the Countess as a pantomime villain, only as involved in her husband's defection to Lancaster, and I submit that my interpretation of the York brothers' role in the affair of her lands is less black and white than your own. I think there is more to be said, ie on what basis did Edward allow Richard to take her to Middleham? Was she to be free to come to court and carry on haranguing him? We now know she was out and about locally, but I bet there were restrictions, and the issue of control of the money was bound to be difficult. Not only Rows, but also the Clairvaux letter, hint that relations with Richard became strained.

Anyway, we're not going to agree, are we?
Marie


>
> Karen
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
> Richard's Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> there is a particularily good bio for anne at.
> http://www.richard111.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
>
> anne was no slouch at protecting her "property" including excluding her
> sisters
> margaret, eleanor and elizabeth via technicalities from inheriting from
> their father.
> she used her manipulative ability with h6 to exclude her half sisters from
> inheriting and even had their appeal put down.
>
> with anne's father's will it was clear he wanted ALL his daughters to
> inherit equally. anne however, was not willing to share. i find her to be
> fairly repugnant as an individual from what i have read about her.
>
> she plays the victim well, but has no problem profiting from manipulation.
> the letters she wrote to everyone and anyone are indictiave to me that she
> used contacts to "make" things go her way. contacting jacquetta, former
> duchess of bedford to help plead her case indicates she was well connected
> to the red rose. i'm surprised (not) that margaret beaufort wasn't one of
> her contacts, believe they were cousins, but i'd need to check that out...
> but then margaret wasn't much of a "player" in the 1470's.
>
> however, anne may well have played a solidly good role in "making" the
> marriages of her daughter isobel and also that of anne to prince edward.
>
> at the time of warwick's death she was travelling with margaret d'anjou's
> contingent. where upon learning of the turn in the battle, she then fled
> her for sanctuary. anne was a warrior women who used "words" as her sword.
> she cut down her sisters, she "sold" her daughters..anything was up for
> offer to gain in power, wealth and influence.
>
> clarence would have known just exactly how much the countess could "work"
> her contacts. i'm not saying that clarence didn't have his hand in working
> against his brother/s too. if warwick's rebellion had succeeded george stood
> profit significantly. he too played both sides of the fence. perhaps a trick
> he learned from his mother in law over the many years of association he had
> had with her.
>
> it failed both of them. but it also gave him insider information with
> regards to lady warwick. richard also had life experience with the grand
> dame. their experienced insight would have been shared with e4. it is very
> likely the marriages of the plantagenet brothers to the warwick sisters
> saved anne beauchamp's life from total ruin and isolation. she would have
> been blacklisted and totally forgotten locked away in a convent.
>
> enter richard to compassionately contain his aggitating mother in law.
>
> powerful medieval women were not the victims that later generations tend to
> portray. these women were dynamic behind the scenes players. they knew how
> to play the game and to exhert control over their destinies. the adage of
> ..behind every successful man is a woman seems to hold pretty darn true in
> the 15thC.
>
> cari
> --- On Mon, 9/24/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
> <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
> Richard's Book
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Received: Monday, September 24, 2012, 12:53 PM
>
>
>
> Carol
>
> The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> until the deed was done.
>
> I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
>
> http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> ck-wife-widow/
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
> the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just
> go
> along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham,
> or
> possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of
> a
> sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
>
> > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end.
> It's
> hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to
> her.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
>
> So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> before or after Richard's death?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 19:42:08
justcarol67
Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip> The countess of Warwick didn't 'lose control' of her lands and titles, they were taken from her. Trying to find a way to blame her for this, rather than accepting that this was one case where Richard didn't act in a particularly noble way, isn't going to convince me. Vilifying the Countess of Warwick doesn't let Richard off the hook. I try to be objective about history, even about the people I admire. Richard doesn't get a free pass from me for actions that would be criticised if carried out by another.

Carol responds:

Nevertheless, if Richard had not sent Sir James Tyrell to remove his mother-in-law from sanctuary and take her home to Middleham, the disinherited countess would have remained under the restrictive conditions imposed by Edward for at least the rest of Edward's reign and perhaps the rest of her life. He couldn't and no doubt didn't want to return her property, but he at least gave her freedom and a home.

I wouldn't trust Pollard any further than I trust Hicks as he also has an anti-Richard bias. I wish I had someone more recent (and less imaginative) than Kendall to recommend for this period of Richard's life. David Baldwin, trying to be both objective and concise though perhaps not succeeding thanks to gaps and assumptions in his book, does at least present a discussion of Richard and the Countess of Oxford (whom you mentioned earlier as also being extorted by Richard) that you might find interesting. I can't recall what he said about the Countess of Warwick--probably nothing new or I'd remember it. At any rate, it might be worth remembering that Richard (like his brothers) was half a Neville by birth and unlike them had spent a great deal of time in Warwick's household, so he would know the countess personally. It may be (and we can only speculate) that he felt more warmly toward her than either Edward or Clarence did and for that reason, or at Anne's request, brought her home to live with them

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 20:34:58
Annette Carson
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book



Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip> The countess of Warwick didn't 'lose control' of her lands and titles, they were taken from her. Trying to find a way to blame her for this, rather than accepting that this was one case where Richard didn't act in a particularly noble way, isn't going to convince me. Vilifying the Countess of Warwick doesn't let Richard off the hook. I try to be objective about history, even about the people I admire. Richard doesn't get a free pass from me for actions that would be criticised if carried out by another.

Carol responds:

Nevertheless, if Richard had not sent Sir James Tyrell to remove his mother-in-law from sanctuary and take her home to Middleham, the disinherited countess would have remained under the restrictive conditions imposed by Edward for at least the rest of Edward's reign and perhaps the rest of her life. He couldn't and no doubt didn't want to return her property, but he at least gave her freedom and a home.

I wouldn't trust Pollard any further than I trust Hicks as he also has an anti-Richard bias. I wish I had someone more recent (and less imaginative) than Kendall to recommend for this period of Richard's life. David Baldwin, trying to be both objective and concise though perhaps not succeeding thanks to gaps and assumptions in his book, does at least present a discussion of Richard and the Countess of Oxford (whom you mentioned earlier as also being extorted by Richard) that you might find interesting. I can't recall what he said about the Countess of Warwick--probably nothing new or I'd remember it. At any rate, it might be worth remembering that Richard (like his brothers) was half a Neville by birth and unlike them had spent a great deal of time in Warwick's household, so he would know the countess personally. It may be (and we can only speculate) that he felt more warmly toward her than either Edward or Clarence did and for that reason, or at Anne's request, brought her home to live with them

Carol





Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 20:38:57
EileenB
--
> Carol responds:
>
> Nevertheless, if Richard had not sent Sir James Tyrell to remove his mother-in-law from sanctuary and take her home to Middleham, the disinherited countess would have remained under the restrictive conditions imposed by Edward for at least the rest of Edward's reign and perhaps the rest of her life. He couldn't and no doubt didn't want to return her property, but he at least gave her freedom and a home.


I agree with you Carol and it makes sense. I think it is important to remember that Richard spent his formative years in the Countess' household and may well have been fond of her. What had befallen her had befallen her and she would have surely reached the stage where she had to accept the cards that life had dealt her and get on with it. It could have been worse...

Edward was a strong personality and I cannot believe other than he had the say on how the inheritance/lands were divvied up. He would have known full well what George and Richard's preferences were but whether he took that into consideration who knows. Richard can hardly be blamed for wanting his wife to get her share of the inheritance. What man was going to stand there and see his wife get robbed. I would imagine that he and Ann had spoken about bringing her mother to live at Middleham once everything had been sorted. I base my view on the times that it is known that Richard behaved honourably...such as taking Anne to sanctuary at St Martins and the times he was kind to widows. Eileen



>
> I wouldn't trust Pollard any further than I trust Hicks as he also has an anti-Richard bias. I wish I had someone more recent (and less imaginative) than Kendall to recommend for this period of Richard's life. David Baldwin, trying to be both objective and concise though perhaps not succeeding thanks to gaps and assumptions in his book, does at least present a discussion of Richard and the Countess of Oxford (whom you mentioned earlier as also being extorted by Richard) that you might find interesting. I can't recall what he said about the Countess of Warwick--probably nothing new or I'd remember it. At any rate, it might be worth remembering that Richard (like his brothers) was half a Neville by birth and unlike them had spent a great deal of time in Warwick's household, so he would know the countess personally. It may be (and we can only speculate) that he felt more warmly toward her than either Edward or Clarence did and for that reason, or at Anne's request, brought her home to live with them
>
> Carol
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 20:41:38
Annette Carson
Sorry for accidental silent post just now. For the case of the Countess of Oxford I just wanted to recommend Anne Sutton, 'Richard of Gloucester's Lands in East Anglia', particularly from page 5, in "Richard III and East Anglia: Magnates, Gilds and Learned Men", Proceedings of the 8th Triennial Conference held at Queens' College in 2005. Published by the Richard III Society in 2010, it's very good value at about five pounds.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book



Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip> The countess of Warwick didn't 'lose control' of her lands and titles, they were taken from her. Trying to find a way to blame her for this, rather than accepting that this was one case where Richard didn't act in a particularly noble way, isn't going to convince me. Vilifying the Countess of Warwick doesn't let Richard off the hook. I try to be objective about history, even about the people I admire. Richard doesn't get a free pass from me for actions that would be criticised if carried out by another.

Carol responds:

Nevertheless, if Richard had not sent Sir James Tyrell to remove his mother-in-law from sanctuary and take her home to Middleham, the disinherited countess would have remained under the restrictive conditions imposed by Edward for at least the rest of Edward's reign and perhaps the rest of her life. He couldn't and no doubt didn't want to return her property, but he at least gave her freedom and a home.

I wouldn't trust Pollard any further than I trust Hicks as he also has an anti-Richard bias. I wish I had someone more recent (and less imaginative) than Kendall to recommend for this period of Richard's life. David Baldwin, trying to be both objective and concise though perhaps not succeeding thanks to gaps and assumptions in his book, does at least present a discussion of Richard and the Countess of Oxford (whom you mentioned earlier as also being extorted by Richard) that you might find interesting. I can't recall what he said about the Countess of Warwick--probably nothing new or I'd remember it. At any rate, it might be worth remembering that Richard (like his brothers) was half a Neville by birth and unlike them had spent a great deal of time in Warwick's household, so he would know the countess personally. It may be (and we can only speculate) that he felt more warmly toward her than either Edward or Clarence did and for that reason, or at Anne's request, brought her home to live with them

Carol





Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 21:41:09
justcarol67
"Annette Carson" wrote:
>
> Sorry for accidental silent post just now. For the case of the Countess of Oxford I just wanted to recommend Anne Sutton, 'Richard of Gloucester's Lands in East Anglia', particularly from page 5, in "Richard III and East Anglia: Magnates, Gilds and Learned Men", Proceedings of the 8th Triennial Conference held at Queens' College in 2005. Published by the Richard III Society in 2010, it's very good value at about five pounds.
> Regards, Annette

Thanks, Annette. I made a note of it. Guess I'd better hurry up and rejoin the Society so I can have access to its publications. If my math is correct, that's about eight dollars at the current exchange rate. Not a bad deal.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-25 23:05:05
fayre rose
karen
looking the known life history of the countess of warwick speaks volumes to me.
in spite of her father's will, she worked diligently to disinherit her half siblings.

 
the marriages of her daughters to prestigious men, speaks volumes. the girls were used to barter for position. check the borgias if you'd like to see how marriages were used to further the family. or if you don't want to stray out of england, view what the woodville's parlayed into family fortune.

 
anne beauchamp was a woman of her era, and she stands out because of her aggressive behaviour. compare her to cecily neville.

 
cecilly was married young and very prestigiously. she did not bring much to the marriage other than "breeding". beauchamp brought wealth, title and property into her marriage.

rub a few clues together and you'll get some sparks. these sparks shed light on who the individuals were per the available records.

 
no, richard doesn't get a free ride with regards to beauchamp. he got a bumpy ride.
 
he did marry her daughter, some say after he rescued her from his brother. some say out of love and others say out of greed.

 
i have my personal beliefs. i honestly think anne and richard did have an emotional connection that arose from childhood. both were raised under the same roof. both knew what is was like to be on the run because of "family" connections. they were both younger children, not expected to inherit much aside from what the generosity of siblings, family or marriage would or could bring to them.

 
perhaps the real story is that richard did not find anne, but anne came to him in the guise of a kitchen maid seeking help for herself and her mother. he assisted her to sanctuary while he negotiated for her freedom away from george and isabel.
 
anne was after all the widow of a potential king of england. if she had conceived prince edward's child, she would have been a very high commodity and in great danger. she would have been closely watched for several months after edward's death. george would be a good candidate to do the watching. after all he had been promised the throne should edward die without issue.  we know edward did.
 
isobel appears to have been sickly, but given her mother's ability to disinherit sisters, isobel may have come by this talent by watching momma. contain the sister and reduce the chance of her inheriting.

 
i do not see anne neville as a victim, i do see her as somewhat of a pawn. but she also knew how to play the game. richard was her friend and she parlayed it into her freedom and that of her mother's too. anne knew how to marry well. momma taught her the importance of that.

and as others have pointed out. e4 could have attainted the countess and taken all of her property, titles etc. however with his brothers being married to the children of traitors, the titles et al, were simply to be fought out amongst the brothers.

 
richard would have been a fool not to stand his ground, and from records..it sounds like richard gave as good as he got as the brothers argued, bargained and pleaded their cases as to who should own what of that was formerly the property of the warwicks.

 
while richard was most certainly up to his neck in it..it remains to be seen as to exactly what the motivation was for him to step into such a hornet's nest. was it greed or love or a little of both. maybe it was simply the loyalty he felt towards a beloved friend.

 
and..speaking of hornets..i think that is a great visual aide for my lady beauchamp, countess of warwick. a non productive stinging annoyance that eats aphids, commonly found on roses.

 
e4 simply swatted her away damaging her stinger. without resources she was merely a buzzing echo. richard and anne provided for her.


--- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 12:58 PM



 



Roslyn, can you please point me to a source that shows the countess of
Warwick as a 'social climber'; a 'traitor' or 'aggressive'? There is so
little in the record about her, or her 'capabilities' that it's a bit of a
stretch to suggest she was some kind of arch-villain that Edward IV was so
afraid of he must lock her away for the rest of her life! This was about
money, titles and property. That's all it was about.The countess of Warwick
didn't 'lose control' of her lands and titles, they were taken from her.
Trying to find a way to blame her for this, rather than accepting that this
was one case where Richard didn't act in a particularly noble way, isn't
going to convince me. Vilifying the Countess of Warwick doesn't let Richard
off the hook. I try to be objective about history, even about the people I
admire. Richard doesn't get a free pass from me for actions that would be
criticised if carried out by another.

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book

karen
you are entitled to your opinions. however, some parents were very rigorous
in their social climbing and making the right sort of connections via
marriage. anne beauchamp is one of those sort of people.

i am very cognizant that it was uncommon for the marriage to be a love
match, but more of a contractual agreement between families.

not all traitors were attainted, nor were they even specifically labelled as
traitors. lady warwick lost control of her lands/property. her daughters
were married to the king's brothers. the males now controlled the females
and their inheritance.

had anne neville not married richard. lady warwick, former countess would
have been shut away for the remainder of her life. the last of the
plantagenets knew the woman and her capabilities.

gossip then, like now was known among the inner circles. i would not be
surprised to learn that cecily and richard and the rest of her older york
children were very aware of the aggressive nature of anne beauchamp. to
understand this prinicple, all you need to have done in your present day
lifetime, is to have lived in a small rural community.

you know who you can trust, and who will undercut you. who were hard workers
and who just simply profitted of the backs of other's work. office politics
also works in the same way.

our modern "feudal" system can be witnessed by watching the "game play" of
the mega and international corporations.

roslyn










Re: The Countess of Warwick's Petition

2012-09-26 00:27:16
mcjohn\_wt\_net
To which Edward replied, "Indeed, madam, you make many excellent points with immense eloquence, but you have neglected to mention that my brother George is a complete brat."

I think it's telling that she ended up at Richard's place. I think it's kind of the same thing he did later for his nephews: their reversal of fortune (which was so common they turned it into this gigantic wheel-based meme we still use) was no reason why they shouldn't live in comfort and such security as he could provide. "Man, that stinks that you lost everything. Tell you what, why don't you come bunk at my place for a while? We have cable."

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> This is the full text (ref British Library MS Cotton Julius BXII, folios 317-8), one of a collection of documents once clearly in Richard's keeping. It is not a letter really, but a petition to parliament. Since it was not passed it can't be found in thee Parliament Rolls. The transcription is my own.
>
> "To the right worshipfull & discrete comyns of this present parlement
> Shewith vnto your wisdomes and discrecions the kynges true liege woman Anne Countesse of Warrewyk whiche neuer offended his most redoghted highnes for she immediately after the dethe of hir lord And husbond on whos soule God haue mercy for noon' offence by her doon but dredyng only trouble beyng that tyme [whiche] within this realme entred into the Seintuare of Beaulieu for suertie of hir persone to dispose for the weel and helthe of the soule of hir seid lord and husbond as right And conscience required her so to doo makyng within .v. dayes or ner' ther' abowtes after her entre into the seid seyntuare her labores suytes and meanes to the Kynges Highnes for her safe garde to be had as diligently and effectuelly as her power wold extend she not saisyng but after her power contynuyng in such labores suytes and meanes in so moche that in absence of clerkes she hathe wretyn lettres in that behalfe to the kynges highness with her owne hand And not only makyng suche labores suytes and meanes to the Kynges Highnes sothely also to the Quenes good grace to my ryght redoghted lady the kynges moder to my lady the kynges eldest doughter to my lordes the kynges brethren to my ladyes the kynges Susters to my lady of Bedford moder to the Quene and to other ladyes noble of this realme In whiche labores suytes and meanes she hathe contynued hyderto and so wyll contynue as she owes to doo tyl it may please the kynge of his most good and noble grace to haue consideracion that duryng the lyfe of her seid lord and husbond she was couert Baron' whiche poynt she remyttes to your grete wisdomes And that after his deceasse all the tyme of her beyng in the seid seyntuare she hath duly kept her fidelite and ligeaunce and obeied the kynges commaundementz how be it hit hath pleased the Kynges Highnes by some synester informacion to his seid Highness made to directe his most drad letters to the Abbot of the monastere of Beaulieu [which] with right sharpe commaundement that suche persones as his highness sent to the seid monastere shuld haue garde and strayte kepyng of her persone whiche was and is to her grete hertys grevaunce she specially feryng that the priuileges & libertees of the churche by suche kepyng of her persone moght be interrupt and violate where the priuileges of the seid seyntuare were neuer so largly attempted in to this tyme as is seid yet the seid Anne & Countesse vnder protestacion by her made hath suffred strayte kepyng of her persone and yet doth that her fidelite and ligeaunce to the Kynges Highnes the better moght be vnderstand hopyng [th] she myght the rather haue had larges to make suytes to the Kynges Highnes in her owne persone for her lyuelode and suche full inheritaunce whiche lyuelode and inheritaunce with all revenous and prouentus therto perteynyng with her Joyntour also and dower of the Erldome of Salesbury fully and holy hath be restrayned fro her from the tyme of the dethe of her seid lord and husbond in to this day And for as moche as our souerayn lord the Kynge of his grete grace hath sette and assembled his high[t] Court of parlement for reformacions right and equite to all his subjettys and liege people duly to be mynystred The said Anne and Countesse humbly besechith your grete wisdomes to pondre and waye in your consciences her right and true title of her inheritaunce as the Erldom of Warrewyk and Spencers londes to whiche she is rightfully born by lyneal succession And also her iointour and dower of the Erldom of Salesbury forseid And to [shewe] her youre benyvolence that by the kyngis good grace and auctorite of this his noble parlement she may to her forsaid lyuelode and rightfull inheritaunce Duly be restored and it enioye as the lawes of all myghty God and of this noble realme right also and conscience doth require Besechyng hertely your grete goodnesses in the reuerence of allmyghty God and of his most blessed moder well of grace to consider the pore estate she standes in how in her owne persone she may not sollicite the premissez as she wold and she moght ner is of power any sufficient sollicitour in this byhalf to make and thogh she moght as may not ther is noon that dar take it vpon hym To haue also this pore bylle in your tendre remembraunce that your parfyte charite and good will may sollicite theffecte of the same whiche to doo her power at this tyme may not extend And shal pray and do pray to God for you"
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > The letter was written while she was in sanctuary. This is one instance
> > where I think the three brothers were equally to blame. The countess
> > shouldn't have needed anyone to get her out of sanctuary, she should have
> > been free to walk out whenever she wanted. She was prevented from leaving
> > until the deed was done.
> >
> > I blogged about the letter (and the countess). Unfortunately, the letter's
> > in modern translation and I haven't come across the original text.
> >
> > http://nevillfeast.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/anne-beauchamp-countess-of-warwi
> > ck-wife-widow/
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:35:51 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > Book
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Ellen, it was entirely in Richard (and brother George)'s interests (sorry for
> > the strange apostrophising) to get their hands, via their wives, on the
> > Warwicks' property. Edward certainly facilitated it, but Richard didn't just go
> > along with it, he took full part in it. The countess did live at Middleham, or
> > possibly had her own small household nearby. This may have been kindness of a
> > sort, but I think it would have been far kinder still not to strip her of
> > everything she had and declare her dead in parliament. <snip>
> >
> > > I blogged about the countess in Beaulieu, and the letter she wrote to
> > parliament stating her case. She fought for her rights to the bitter end. It's
> > hard to make a case that she wasn't deeply distressed by what was done to her.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > As I understand the situation, it was Edward and Parliament who declared the
> > Countess legally dead because Edward wanted Richard to have a power base in
> > the North. Had Richard not fought for his share (via Anne, whom Clarence
> > didn't want him to marry), it would have gone to Clarence (via Isabel),
> > wronging Anne as well as her mother. Admittedly, the countess was badly
> > treated, but Richard did at least send Sir James Tyrell to take her out of
> > sanctuary and bring her home. What happened from there, I don't know until
> > Henry VII restored her property only to take it back from her. (I could be
> > mistaken; I'm writing from memory here.)
> >
> > So, yes, the countess was wronged all around, but Richard was least to blame
> > of the men who wronged her. BTW, what was the date of that letter? Was it
> > before or after Richard's death?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Diabolical Duchess? was Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-26 00:34:54
phaecilia
Hello Carol,

It sounds like C. Weightman has revised the print version I own quite thoroughly. Here's why I think so:

In her preface and acknowledgements she says she enjoyed living and working in Belgium for 12 years and thanks those who helped her research and publish her book.

The prolog begins with Londoners' reactions on the day Margaret's wedding party left for Burgundy. Londoners were relieved to see Warwick in the party because they hoped it meant he'd resolved his conflict with Edward IV, so there would be no renewal of civil war. It ends with praise for Margaret's ability to balance her loyalties to York and Burgundy during her life there. There's nothing about her wedding day or the preceding negotiations in the prolog.

The 7 chapters are roughly in chronological order. The 1st chapter includes a lot of information about the duke of York's conflict with Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers. My print copy says there was a lot of "historical and fictional imagination" devoted to events at Ludlow. Maybe Weightman wanted to distance her book from all of that. Chapt. 2 covers "the marriage of the century." But it doesn't describe Margaret's state of mind before the ceremony. Everything is 3rd person objective reporting style. Chapter 3 describes her life before Charles the Bold's death. Chapters 4-7 describe her life afterwards.

I like Chapt. 7's focus on her love of books and support for William Caxton. I hope the Kindle version hasn't condensed or deleted that too much. I think her encouragement of Caxton's work deserves far more attention than any thing Henry VII or Edward Hall called her.

If I could change that subtitle, I'd use "the duchess who helped Caxton bring the printing press to England."

Marion



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Carol,
> >
> > I've read a biography of Margaret of York by Christine Weightman. Reading it strengthened my feeling that the more I can learn about 15th c. Anglo-Burgundian relations, the better I can understand what went on in 15th c. England. It made me feel that it's possible Richard sent his nephews to Margaret, duchess of Burgundy for safekeeping.
> >
> > My copy is a hardbound with good illustrations. But it isn't subtitled "diabolical duchess." Maybe the author has updated it and tried to make it less scholarly and more appealing to general readers. If this is a paperback it might not have the illustrations.
> >
> > Have you tried American Book Exchange? I bought my copy second hand from them several years ago. They might still have illustrated copies for sale.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, Marion. That sounds like the book I was talking about with, as you suggest, a new subtitle to attract nonspecialist readers. I bought "The Diabolical Duchess" on Kindle and am now up to about 1477 (though Weightman doesn't always present her information in chronological order).
>
> The version I have starts out with a novelistic preface where she tries to get into Margaret's mind on her wedding day (not a promising beginning) then adopts a more scholarly but still readable style to discuss Margaret's wedding and the preceding negotiations. We don't even get to Margaret's birth and background until chapter 3. My impression so far is that she goes into way too much detail about ceremonies and palaces and more detail than I'm interested in (but I can't speak for other readers) about her counselors and so forth. I's prefer a strict chronological telling of Margaret's life. Otherwise, my quibbles are minor (things like calling Edward "her brother" or speaking of "her two brothers" as if Richard didn't exist. So far, though, she doesn't seem to treat him with any antagonism. Interesting how objectively she presents Charles's ruthlessness, which far exceeds Richard's at any time in his life. The book does have illustrations but on my Kindle Touch they're in black and white.
>
> One thing I did wonder about is how quickly she dismisses the story of Cecily with Richard and George at the sacking of Ludlow. I always wondered where Margaret was at that time. Maybe her absence from the stories is Weightman's unstated reason for rejecting it.
>
> Anyway, does that sound like the same book? I'll come back with a more detailed assessment later (unless someone is worried about "spoilers" in a biography!) and a clearer idea of whether I think it's worth reading.
>
> Carol
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 00:47:37
phaecilia
Hello Annette and Carol,

I second the recommendation. I borrowed it from the US branch library, which I also recommend as a good source for expensive Richardian books.

Marion


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Annette Carson" wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for accidental silent post just now. For the case of the Countess of Oxford I just wanted to recommend Anne Sutton, 'Richard of Gloucester's Lands in East Anglia', particularly from page 5, in "Richard III and East Anglia: Magnates, Gilds and Learned Men", Proceedings of the 8th Triennial Conference held at Queens' College in 2005. Published by the Richard III Society in 2010, it's very good value at about five pounds.
> > Regards, Annette
>
> Thanks, Annette. I made a note of it. Guess I'd better hurry up and rejoin the Society so I can have access to its publications. If my math is correct, that's about eight dollars at the current exchange rate. Not a bad deal.
>
> Carol
>

Re: Henry VI's mother

2012-09-26 01:58:35
Terry Buckaloo
Hi Carol,

Here's a site that clearly shows the relationships betwen H VII and L XI.

Owen Tudor and Louis XI were first cousins, making Henry VII and Louis XI
first cousins once removed.

http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00001542
<http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00001542&tree=LEO>
&tree=LEO

T



Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 02:29:05
Karen Clark
Marie

Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
point.

Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.

In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
was one of the people who most gained from it.

There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
inheritance.

I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
it.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> . If the Countess was suspected of
> treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> an 'inheritance' for her daughters.

Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them into
Clarence and Gloucester's hands. This is pure Hicks. Edward already had
confiscated her lands and put them into Clarence's hands. He could have put
them into Richard's hands just as easily. %The 1474 settlement was no more
secure than a royal grant as it was effected by an Act of Parliament that
could have been repealed at any time (as indeed it was in 1487). In fact the
1474 settlement, in that it engineered an inheritance for Isabel and Anne,
was better than confiscation from the Countess's point of view because it
settled the lands on tyhe King's brothers AND their wives, the Countess's
daughters, whereas the previous settlement had been on Clarence as an
individual.
You are surely not blaming Edward for finding a way to punish her short of
attainder - bearing in mind that the punishment for a female traitor was
death by burning.






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 02:40:20
Karen Clark
Carol

As my current brief is wider that Richard's reign, I don't write off
historians based on their view of Richard. When it comes to the Nevills,
Pollard really does have a better handle on the subject that most others. It
seems, regarding Richard, that everyone has an agenda. I've yet to come
across anyone whose work I'd call unbiased. I guess that means I shall have
to read those who are flagrantly 'for' and those flagrantly 'against' and
try to work out just who's been picking what cherries! I've heard such
conflicting reports from both ends of the spectrum about David Baldwin that
I'm beginning to think (despite the mistakes in his Kingmaker's Sisters)
that he might be closer to a middle ground than any of them. Anyone who
annoys both the for and against sides as much as his book has done, has to
be worth reading!

Yes, Richard did bring about the release of the countess of Warwick. That
was a decent thing to do. It doesn't let him off the hook, in my view. Her
mistake, in hindsight, was entering sanctuary. But, just imagining her state
of mind, I can't think what else she might have done.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:42:05 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip> The countess of Warwick didn't 'lose control' of her lands and titles,
they were taken from her. Trying to find a way to blame her for this, rather
than accepting that this was one case where Richard didn't act in a particularly
noble way, isn't going to convince me. Vilifying the Countess of Warwick doesn't
let Richard off the hook. I try to be objective about history, even about the
people I admire. Richard doesn't get a free pass from me for actions that would
be criticised if carried out by another.

Carol responds:

Nevertheless, if Richard had not sent Sir James Tyrell to remove his
mother-in-law from sanctuary and take her home to Middleham, the
disinherited countess would have remained under the restrictive conditions
imposed by Edward for at least the rest of Edward's reign and perhaps the
rest of her life. He couldn't and no doubt didn't want to return her
property, but he at least gave her freedom and a home.

I wouldn't trust Pollard any further than I trust Hicks as he also has an
anti-Richard bias. I wish I had someone more recent (and less imaginative)
than Kendall to recommend for this period of Richard's life. David Baldwin,
trying to be both objective and concise though perhaps not succeeding thanks
to gaps and assumptions in his book, does at least present a discussion of
Richard and the Countess of Oxford (whom you mentioned earlier as also being
extorted by Richard) that you might find interesting. I can't recall what he
said about the Countess of Warwick--probably nothing new or I'd remember it.
At any rate, it might be worth remembering that Richard (like his brothers)
was half a Neville by birth and unlike them had spent a great deal of time
in Warwick's household, so he would know the countess personally. It may be
(and we can only speculate) that he felt more warmly toward her than either
Edward or Clarence did and for that reason, or at Anne's request, brought
her home to live with them

Carol






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 02:43:19
Karen Clark
Annette

Your phantom post certainly had me puzzled! I shall put this paper on my
list, many thanks.

Karen

From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:41:33 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book






Sorry for accidental silent post just now. For the case of the Countess of
Oxford I just wanted to recommend Anne Sutton, 'Richard of Gloucester's
Lands in East Anglia', particularly from page 5, in "Richard III and East
Anglia: Magnates, Gilds and Learned Men", Proceedings of the 8th Triennial
Conference held at Queens' College in 2005. Published by the Richard III
Society in 2010, it's very good value at about five pounds.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip> The countess of Warwick didn't 'lose control' of her lands and
titles, they were taken from her. Trying to find a way to blame her for
this, rather than accepting that this was one case where Richard didn't act
in a particularly noble way, isn't going to convince me. Vilifying the
Countess of Warwick doesn't let Richard off the hook. I try to be objective
about history, even about the people I admire. Richard doesn't get a free
pass from me for actions that would be criticised if carried out by another.

Carol responds:

Nevertheless, if Richard had not sent Sir James Tyrell to remove his
mother-in-law from sanctuary and take her home to Middleham, the
disinherited countess would have remained under the restrictive conditions
imposed by Edward for at least the rest of Edward's reign and perhaps the
rest of her life. He couldn't and no doubt didn't want to return her
property, but he at least gave her freedom and a home.

I wouldn't trust Pollard any further than I trust Hicks as he also has an
anti-Richard bias. I wish I had someone more recent (and less imaginative)
than Kendall to recommend for this period of Richard's life. David Baldwin,
trying to be both objective and concise though perhaps not succeeding thanks
to gaps and assumptions in his book, does at least present a discussion of
Richard and the Countess of Oxford (whom you mentioned earlier as also being
extorted by Richard) that you might find interesting. I can't recall what he
said about the Countess of Warwick--probably nothing new or I'd remember it.
At any rate, it might be worth remembering that Richard (like his brothers)
was half a Neville by birth and unlike them had spent a great deal of time
in Warwick's household, so he would know the countess personally. It may be
(and we can only speculate) that he felt more warmly toward her than either
Edward or Clarence did and for that reason, or at Anne's request, brought
her home to live with them

Carol











Diabolical Duchess? was Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-26 04:44:29
justcarol67
--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Carol,
>
> It sounds like C. Weightman has revised the print version I own quite thoroughly. Here's why I think so:
>
> In her preface and acknowledgements she says she enjoyed living and working in Belgium for 12 years and thanks those who helped her research and publish her book.
>
> The prolog begins with Londoners' reactions on the day Margaret's wedding party left for Burgundy. Londoners were relieved to see Warwick in the party because they hoped it meant he'd resolved his conflict with Edward IV, so there would be no renewal of civil war. It ends with praise for Margaret's ability to balance her loyalties to York and Burgundy during her life there. There's nothing about her wedding day or the preceding negotiations in the prolog.
>
> The 7 chapters are roughly in chronological order. The 1st chapter includes a lot of information about the duke of York's conflict with Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers. My print copy says there was a lot of "historical and fictional imagination" devoted to events at Ludlow. Maybe Weightman wanted to distance her book from all of that. Chapt. 2 covers "the marriage of the century." But it doesn't describe Margaret's state of mind before the ceremony. Everything is 3rd person objective reporting style. Chapter 3 describes her life before Charles the Bold's death. Chapters 4-7 describe her life afterwards.
>
> I like Chapt. 7's focus on her love of books and support for William Caxton. I hope the Kindle version hasn't condensed or deleted that too much. I think her encouragement of Caxton's work deserves far more attention than any thing Henry VII or Edward Hall called her.
>
> If I could change that subtitle, I'd use "the duchess who helped Caxton bring the printing press to England."
>
> Marion

Hi, Marion. This version has chapter titles like "Madame :a Grande" (Chapter 5) followed by epigraphs or quotations, in this case, "The unsteadfastness of this world being" (which strikes me as a rather confusing sentence fragment). Chapter 2 is "Daughter or York" (a flashback to her early years). "The Marriage of the Century" is chapter 1. In other words, it seems that you're right--she has revised it.

But even if the chapter sequence were strictly chronological, it would still be confusing for me because she moves around so much in both place and time. It's disappointing (to me) that she spends so much time on the affairs of Burgundy and so little on Margaret herself as a person. The bits about England and her family were like small bits of candy sprinkled through it.

It's odd that she says nothing worse about Richard as Edward and Margaret's brother than that he opposed the Treaty of Picquigny because he was "warlike" (an assumption that she doesn't back up) but then takes for granted that he usurped the throne and murdered his nephews. Margaret is strangely blase (can't do an accent mark, sorry) about the fate of these "murders" and Richard's role in them, accepting Richard's (supposed) actions without question. At least, she assigns Maximilian a motive for accepting Richard: hope that the "warlike" king will help him to fight against France and support his regency. Later, she has Cecily and her other daughter, the Duchess of Suffolk, accepting Tudor's rule with the same equanimity and Margaret's motives for opposing him (and supporting "pretenders") more economic than dynastic. (She doesn't consider the possibility that Warbeck, at least, may have been what he claimed to be.)

She mentions but doesn't explore the diplomatic exchanges and correspondence between, first, Richard and Margaret and then Cecily and Margaret but assumes that they all used secret agents. Hm. why would Richard want to conceal correspondence with his sister or Cecily with her daughter (even in years when England and Burgundy were at peace) unless it had something to do with Yorkist interests and just possibly with Edward's sons? But it seems that very little of the correspondence has survived. Possibly, they all trusted to their agents' memories to deliver important details rather than committing them to paper.

At any rate, I haven't quite finished the Kindle version (which is probably the same as the paperback), but despite interesting tidbits (such as speculation on the reasons for Richard of York's children's names), I'm not impressed. It seems too detailed in relation to the history of Burgundy and too skimpy with regard to Margaret herself. Maybe there's just not enough information about her to write a regular biography. Funny, though, how Margaret, too, is a victim of Yorkist propaganda, but nobody knows about it because she wasn't a major character in a Shakespeare play.

One more thing I found interesting with regard to the recent discussion in this forum about dynastic marriages: She attributes part of the failure of the House of York to Richard of York's failure to find suitable marriage partners for his sons. Setting aside the other sons, imagine Edward married at an early age (before he set eyes on Eleanor Butler) to a Continental princess. No Woodville marriage, no rebellion or or Warwick, no Tewkesbury or Barnet, no Bosworth. Of course, Richard would probably never have become king, but he might well have been happier that way. But I digress; she also blames Edward for not finding suitable husbands for Richard and George after their father's death. With no Woodville marriage, there might have been English heiresses for them to marry--maybe even the Neville girls with their parents still alive and possessed of their property.

Oh, well. I'm talking might-have-beens now. Might as well talk about what might have been if Edmund had survived!

Carol, with apologies for getting so far off subject

Re: Henry VI's mother

2012-09-26 04:55:49
justcarol67
"Terry Buckaloo" wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> Here's a site that clearly shows the relationships betwen H VII and L XI.
>
> Owen Tudor and Louis XI were first cousins, making Henry VII and Louis XI first cousins once removed.
>
> http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00001542
> <http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00001542&tree=LEO>
> &tree=LEO

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. That's a very close relationship--the same as Richard's and George's to their respective wives. I've bookmarked the site and will check it out when I have the time--not just Henry's claim to the French throne (never stated overtly but Louis must always have had it in mind in his dealings with him) but whatever else I can discover about all the principal characters in this real-life tragedy.

Also, I guess that makes Louis XI and Catherine of Valois brother and sister? Richard II's child bride was also Catherine's sister. Makes Louis seem like a leftover from another era!

Carol

Re: Diabolical Duchess? was Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-26 09:56:15
Annette Carson
@Carol - loved this post, especially the digressions!
@Carol and Marion - thanks so much for comparing the two editions of Weightman. Usually one expects a second edition (if it has the same title) to be an updated version of the first, so it's very valuable to know that the paperback is substantially revised ... would you say NOT for the better? Perhaps difficult to judge without reading them both.
Thanks anyway, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:44 AM
Subject: Diabolical Duchess? was Re: David Baldwin





--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Carol,
>
> It sounds like C. Weightman has revised the print version I own quite thoroughly. Here's why I think so:
>
> In her preface and acknowledgements she says she enjoyed living and working in Belgium for 12 years and thanks those who helped her research and publish her book.
>
> The prolog begins with Londoners' reactions on the day Margaret's wedding party left for Burgundy. Londoners were relieved to see Warwick in the party because they hoped it meant he'd resolved his conflict with Edward IV, so there would be no renewal of civil war. It ends with praise for Margaret's ability to balance her loyalties to York and Burgundy during her life there. There's nothing about her wedding day or the preceding negotiations in the prolog.
>
> The 7 chapters are roughly in chronological order. The 1st chapter includes a lot of information about the duke of York's conflict with Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers. My print copy says there was a lot of "historical and fictional imagination" devoted to events at Ludlow. Maybe Weightman wanted to distance her book from all of that. Chapt. 2 covers "the marriage of the century." But it doesn't describe Margaret's state of mind before the ceremony. Everything is 3rd person objective reporting style. Chapter 3 describes her life before Charles the Bold's death. Chapters 4-7 describe her life afterwards.
>
> I like Chapt. 7's focus on her love of books and support for William Caxton. I hope the Kindle version hasn't condensed or deleted that too much. I think her encouragement of Caxton's work deserves far more attention than any thing Henry VII or Edward Hall called her.
>
> If I could change that subtitle, I'd use "the duchess who helped Caxton bring the printing press to England."
>
> Marion

Hi, Marion. This version has chapter titles like "Madame :a Grande" (Chapter 5) followed by epigraphs or quotations, in this case, "The unsteadfastness of this world being" (which strikes me as a rather confusing sentence fragment). Chapter 2 is "Daughter or York" (a flashback to her early years). "The Marriage of the Century" is chapter 1. In other words, it seems that you're right--she has revised it.

But even if the chapter sequence were strictly chronological, it would still be confusing for me because she moves around so much in both place and time. It's disappointing (to me) that she spends so much time on the affairs of Burgundy and so little on Margaret herself as a person. The bits about England and her family were like small bits of candy sprinkled through it.

It's odd that she says nothing worse about Richard as Edward and Margaret's brother than that he opposed the Treaty of Picquigny because he was "warlike" (an assumption that she doesn't back up) but then takes for granted that he usurped the throne and murdered his nephews. Margaret is strangely blase (can't do an accent mark, sorry) about the fate of these "murders" and Richard's role in them, accepting Richard's (supposed) actions without question. At least, she assigns Maximilian a motive for accepting Richard: hope that the "warlike" king will help him to fight against France and support his regency. Later, she has Cecily and her other daughter, the Duchess of Suffolk, accepting Tudor's rule with the same equanimity and Margaret's motives for opposing him (and supporting "pretenders") more economic than dynastic. (She doesn't consider the possibility that Warbeck, at least, may have been what he claimed to be.)

She mentions but doesn't explore the diplomatic exchanges and correspondence between, first, Richard and Margaret and then Cecily and Margaret but assumes that they all used secret agents. Hm. why would Richard want to conceal correspondence with his sister or Cecily with her daughter (even in years when England and Burgundy were at peace) unless it had something to do with Yorkist interests and just possibly with Edward's sons? But it seems that very little of the correspondence has survived. Possibly, they all trusted to their agents' memories to deliver important details rather than committing them to paper.

At any rate, I haven't quite finished the Kindle version (which is probably the same as the paperback), but despite interesting tidbits (such as speculation on the reasons for Richard of York's children's names), I'm not impressed. It seems too detailed in relation to the history of Burgundy and too skimpy with regard to Margaret herself. Maybe there's just not enough information about her to write a regular biography. Funny, though, how Margaret, too, is a victim of Yorkist propaganda, but nobody knows about it because she wasn't a major character in a Shakespeare play.

One more thing I found interesting with regard to the recent discussion in this forum about dynastic marriages: She attributes part of the failure of the House of York to Richard of York's failure to find suitable marriage partners for his sons. Setting aside the other sons, imagine Edward married at an early age (before he set eyes on Eleanor Butler) to a Continental princess. No Woodville marriage, no rebellion or or Warwick, no Tewkesbury or Barnet, no Bosworth. Of course, Richard would probably never have become king, but he might well have been happier that way. But I digress; she also blames Edward for not finding suitable husbands for Richard and George after their father's death. With no Woodville marriage, there might have been English heiresses for them to marry--maybe even the Neville girls with their parents still alive and possessed of their property.

Oh, well. I'm talking might-have-beens now. Might as well talk about what might have been if Edmund had survived!

Carol, with apologies for getting so far off subject





Re: Henry VI's mother

2012-09-26 12:23:40
Annette Carson
Er, well, Catherine de Valois was Louis XI's aunt, I believe, so her second husband (assuming they were married) would have been Louis's uncle by marriage. That's Owen Tudor senior (in case an Owen Tudor junior existed, which has been questioned). So by my reckoning Catherine's sons Edmund and Jasper Tudor were first cousins to Louis XI. I believe that makes Henry Tudor Louis's first cousin once removed. But I'm open to correction ....
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: Henry VI's mother





"Terry Buckaloo" wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> Here's a site that clearly shows the relationships betwen H VII and L XI.
>
> Owen Tudor and Louis XI were first cousins, making Henry VII and Louis XI first cousins once removed.
>
> http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00001542
> <http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00001542&tree=LEO>
> &tree=LEO

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. That's a very close relationship--the same as Richard's and George's to their respective wives. I've bookmarked the site and will check it out when I have the time--not just Henry's claim to the French throne (never stated overtly but Louis must always have had it in mind in his dealings with him) but whatever else I can discover about all the principal characters in this real-life tragedy.

Also, I guess that makes Louis XI and Catherine of Valois brother and sister? Richard II's child bride was also Catherine's sister. Makes Louis seem like a leftover from another era!

Carol





Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 16:39:13
justcarol67
Karen Clark wrote:

> As my current brief is wider that Richard's reign, I don't write off
> historians based on their view of Richard.

Carol responds:

Well, yes, but we're not talking about Richard's reign here. We're talking about him as Duke of Gloucester. (Most of the attacks on Richard, for what it's worth, center on his role as Protector, which lasted only a few months.) But I do understand that you're primarily interested in the Nevilles or Nevills. (Is there a particular reason for dropping the "e"?)

Karen:
When it comes to the Nevills, Pollard really does have a better handle on the subject that most others.

Carol:
I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was Richard's rising sign, Scorpio. Pollard ignores that distinction. I wrote (for my own benefit) a little review that begins, "Though Pollard is not as overtly hostile [to Richard] as Desmond Seward, there is little to recommend this pretty book, whose author feels that the character of Richard as Lord of the North and as king can only be reconciled with that of the "murderous" Protector by making him a hypocrite and even something of a would-be lecher!" (At least he does concede that there is no evidence that Richard was deformed--a point he'll probably reverse now that the skeleton (if it's Richard's) has been shown to have a raised shoulder--or that he was a sickly child.

Since there's no Tudor slander of the Nevilles, he can depend more on contemporary sources for his analysis of them, which may account for his greater dependability in that regard. I really don't know, but I wouldn't trust anything that Pollard says with regard to Richard.

Karen wrote:
> It seems, regarding Richard, that everyone has an agenda. I've yet to come across anyone whose work I'd call unbiased. I guess that means I shall have to read those who are flagrantly 'for' and those flagrantly 'against' and try to work out just who's been picking what cherries!

Carol responds:
Exactly! The problem is that there are so few recent pro-Richard books and no recent pro-Richard full biography. Kendall (who does concede some of Richard's flaws and wisely, IMO, relegates the discussion of the "princes" to an appendix) is sixty years old--I mean, his book is sixty years old!--and does contain errors, such as his statement that "Jane" Shore (as he calls her) did not marry Thomas Lynom. More recent pro-Richard books tend to focus on specific incidents or periods (though I still recommend "The Maligned King" and John Ashdown-Hill's "The Last Days of Richard III").

Karen:
I've heard such conflicting reports from both ends of the spectrum about David Baldwin that I'm beginning to think (despite the mistakes in his Kingmaker's Sisters)that he might be closer to a middle ground than any of them. Anyone who annoys both the for and against sides as much as his book has done, has to be worth reading!

Carol responds:

Good point! I think his main problem was trying to be too concise, which leaves gaps and ambiguities. He tends to jump to unsupported conclusions.

Karen:
> Yes, Richard did bring about the release of the countess of Warwick. That was a decent thing to do. It doesn't let him off the hook, in my view. Her mistake, in hindsight, was entering sanctuary. But, just imagining her state of mind, I can't think what else she might have done.

Carol responds:
Thanks for the concession regarding Richard. As for the Countess, her only other alternative was probably to go directly to Edward and ask for mercy. Since she wasn't likely to become yet another secret wife, that might have been her best option.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 18:01:05
Karen Clark
Carol

"(Is there a particular reason for dropping the "e"?)"

Two reasons. It saves inkŠ But the real reason is that the Nevills who
survive with that name (not any of the Middleham Nevills but the Lords of
Abergavenny, descended from Ralph Nevill and his first wife) spell it that
way. No-one need feel that they have to do the same. I'm very particular
about no 'e' on MY last name, but I make no demands on behalf of the
Nevills.

"Thanks for the concession regarding Richard. As for the Countess, her only
other alternative was probably to go directly to Edward and ask for mercy.
Since she wasn't likely to become yet another secret wife, that might have
been her best option."

Two points here. Firstly, I'm more than happy, always, to recognise the good
in Richard. I'm just not prepared to wave away the not so good.

And looking at the events of the time, I think Edward had more than one
reason to keep the countess of Warwick in sanctuary. Firstly, so she
couldn't find someone to speak for her and, possibly, even at some point
remarry. She was still only 45 and though there'd be no likelihood of
children, someone would have found sharing her wealth an attractive enough
prospect to throw his support behind her. I have no idea who that someone
might have been, it's just a thought. Also, had she appealed to Edward in
person, I think he wouldn't have found it so easy to do what he did.

Impossible to put myself in her position. Clear headed is not something I'd
be if I heard my husband of 36 years was dead. The clues are tiny, and maybe
I've misinterpreted them, but their marriage seems to have been solid.

Karen










Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 18:43:36
fayre rose
while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
 
in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
 
the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
 
as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
 
anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.

--- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM



 



Marie

Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
point.

Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.

In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
was one of the people who most gained from it.

There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
inheritance.

I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
it.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> . If the Countess was suspected of
> treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> an 'inheritance' for her daughters.

Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
Attainting her and conf

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 19:45:51
fayre rose
carol wrote


I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard
is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the
Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed
significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is
that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard
propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was
Richard's rising sign, Scorpio.

roslyn replies
wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was based on an individual's birthchart too.

a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.

this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.
Planetary positions



planet

sign

degree




motion





Sun

Libra

9°11'42

in house 11

direct





Moon

Aquarius

6°27'53

in house 3

direct





Mercury

Libra

16°05'29

in house 12

direct





Venus

Scorpio

21°58'01

in house 1

direct





Mars

Aries

20°04'08

in house 6

retrograde





Jupiter

Aquarius

28°09'00

in house 4

retrograde





Saturn

Libra

20°10'08

in house 12

direct





Uranus

Leo

0°05'10

in house 9

direct





Neptune

Libra

2°25'43

in house 11

direct





Pluto

Leo

8°43'40

in house 9

direct





True Node

Sagittarius

29°22'48

in house 2

retrograde






note in richard's era. the planets uranus, neptune and pluto were not used in astrology.

House positions (Placidus)



Ascendant

Scorpio

3°32'38





2nd House

Sagittarius

0°59'04





3rd House

Capricorn

6°43'19





Imum Coeli

Aquarius

17°09'07





5th House

Pisces

20°35'12





6th House

Aries

15°12'55





Descendant

Taurus

3°32'38





8th House

Gemini

0°59'04





9th House

Cancer

6°43'19





Medium Coeli

Leo

17°09'07





11th House

Virgo

20°35'12





12th House

Libra

15°12'55







--- On Wed, 9/26/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 11:39 AM
















 









Karen Clark wrote:



> As my current brief is wider that Richard's reign, I don't write off

> historians based on their view of Richard.



Carol responds:



Well, yes, but we're not talking about Richard's reign here. We're talking about him as Duke of Gloucester. (Most of the attacks on Richard, for what it's worth, center on his role as Protector, which lasted only a few months.) But I do understand that you're primarily interested in the Nevilles or Nevills. (Is there a particular reason for dropping the "e"?)



Karen:

When it comes to the Nevills, Pollard really does have a better handle on the subject that most others.



Carol:

I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was Richard's rising sign, Scorpio. Pollard ignores that distinction. I wrote (for my own benefit) a little review that begins, "Though Pollard is not as overtly hostile [to Richard] as Desmond Seward, there is little to recommend this pretty book, whose author feels that the character of Richard as Lord of the North and as king can only be reconciled with that of the "murderous" Protector by making him a hypocrite and even something of a would-be lecher!" (At least he does concede that there is no evidence that Richard was deformed--a point he'll probably
reverse now that the skeleton (if it's Richard's) has been shown to have a raised shoulder--or that he was a sickly child.



Since there's no Tudor slander of the Nevilles, he can depend more on contemporary sources for his analysis of them, which may account for his greater dependability in that regard. I really don't know, but I wouldn't trust anything that Pollard says with regard to Richard.



Karen wrote:

> It seems, regarding Richard, that everyone has an agenda. I've yet to come across anyone whose work I'd call unbiased. I guess that means I shall have to read those who are flagrantly 'for' and those flagrantly 'against' and try to work out just who's been picking what cherries!



Carol responds:

Exactly! The problem is that there are so few recent pro-Richard books and no recent pro-Richard full biography. Kendall (who does concede some of Richard's flaws and wisely, IMO, relegates the discussion of the "princes" to an appendix) is sixty years old--I mean, his book is sixty years old!--and does contain errors, such as his statement that "Jane" Shore (as he calls her) did not marry Thomas Lynom. More recent pro-Richard books tend to focus on specific incidents or periods (though I still recommend "The Maligned King" and John Ashdown-Hill's "The Last Days of Richard III").



Karen:

I've heard such conflicting reports from both ends of the spectrum about David Baldwin that I'm beginning to think (despite the mistakes in his Kingmaker's Sisters)that he might be closer to a middle ground than any of them. Anyone who annoys both the for and against sides as much as his book has done, has to be worth reading!



Carol responds:



Good point! I think his main problem was trying to be too concise, which leaves gaps and ambiguities. He tends to jump to unsupported conclusions.



Karen:

> Yes, Richard did bring about the release of the countess of Warwick. That was a decent thing to do. It doesn't let him off the hook, in my view. Her mistake, in hindsight, was entering sanctuary. But, just imagining her state of mind, I can't think what else she might have done.



Carol responds:

Thanks for the concession regarding Richard. As for the Countess, her only other alternative was probably to go directly to Edward and ask for mercy. Since she wasn't likely to become yet another secret wife, that might have been her best option.



Carol



























Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 19:47:48
fayre rose
carol wrote


I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard
is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the
Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed
significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is
that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard
propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was
Richard's rising sign, Scorpio.

roslyn replies
wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was based on an individual's birthchart too.

a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.

this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.
Planetary positions



planet

sign

degree




motion





Sun

Libra

9°11'42

in house 11

direct





Moon

Aquarius

6°27'53

in house 3

direct





Mercury

Libra

16°05'29

in house 12

direct





Venus

Scorpio

21°58'01

in house 1

direct





Mars

Aries

20°04'08

in house 6

retrograde





Jupiter

Aquarius

28°09'00

in house 4

retrograde





Saturn

Libra

20°10'08

in house 12

direct





Uranus

Leo

0°05'10

in house 9

direct





Neptune

Libra

2°25'43

in house 11

direct





Pluto

Leo

8°43'40

in house 9

direct





True Node

Sagittarius

29°22'48

in house 2

retrograde






note in richard's era. the planets uranus, neptune and pluto were not used in astrology.

House positions (Placidus)



Ascendant

Scorpio

3°32'38





2nd House

Sagittarius

0°59'04





3rd House

Capricorn

6°43'19





Imum Coeli

Aquarius

17°09'07





5th House

Pisces

20°35'12





6th House

Aries

15°12'55





Descendant

Taurus

3°32'38





8th House

Gemini

0°59'04





9th House

Cancer

6°43'19





Medium Coeli

Leo

17°09'07





11th House

Virgo

20°35'12





12th House

Libra

15°12'55







--- On Wed, 9/26/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 11:39 AM
















 









Karen Clark wrote:



> As my current brief is wider that Richard's reign, I don't write off

> historians based on their view of Richard.



Carol responds:



Well, yes, but we're not talking about Richard's reign here. We're talking about him as Duke of Gloucester. (Most of the attacks on Richard, for what it's worth, center on his role as Protector, which lasted only a few months.) But I do understand that you're primarily interested in the Nevilles or Nevills. (Is there a particular reason for dropping the "e"?)



Karen:

When it comes to the Nevills, Pollard really does have a better handle on the subject that most others.



Carol:

I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was Richard's rising sign, Scorpio. Pollard ignores that distinction. I wrote (for my own benefit) a little review that begins, "Though Pollard is not as overtly hostile [to Richard] as Desmond Seward, there is little to recommend this pretty book, whose author feels that the character of Richard as Lord of the North and as king can only be reconciled with that of the "murderous" Protector by making him a hypocrite and even something of a would-be lecher!" (At least he does concede that there is no evidence that Richard was deformed--a point he'll probably
reverse now that the skeleton (if it's Richard's) has been shown to have a raised shoulder--or that he was a sickly child.



Since there's no Tudor slander of the Nevilles, he can depend more on contemporary sources for his analysis of them, which may account for his greater dependability in that regard. I really don't know, but I wouldn't trust anything that Pollard says with regard to Richard.



Karen wrote:

> It seems, regarding Richard, that everyone has an agenda. I've yet to come across anyone whose work I'd call unbiased. I guess that means I shall have to read those who are flagrantly 'for' and those flagrantly 'against' and try to work out just who's been picking what cherries!



Carol responds:

Exactly! The problem is that there are so few recent pro-Richard books and no recent pro-Richard full biography. Kendall (who does concede some of Richard's flaws and wisely, IMO, relegates the discussion of the "princes" to an appendix) is sixty years old--I mean, his book is sixty years old!--and does contain errors, such as his statement that "Jane" Shore (as he calls her) did not marry Thomas Lynom. More recent pro-Richard books tend to focus on specific incidents or periods (though I still recommend "The Maligned King" and John Ashdown-Hill's "The Last Days of Richard III").



Karen:

I've heard such conflicting reports from both ends of the spectrum about David Baldwin that I'm beginning to think (despite the mistakes in his Kingmaker's Sisters)that he might be closer to a middle ground than any of them. Anyone who annoys both the for and against sides as much as his book has done, has to be worth reading!



Carol responds:



Good point! I think his main problem was trying to be too concise, which leaves gaps and ambiguities. He tends to jump to unsupported conclusions.



Karen:

> Yes, Richard did bring about the release of the countess of Warwick. That was a decent thing to do. It doesn't let him off the hook, in my view. Her mistake, in hindsight, was entering sanctuary. But, just imagining her state of mind, I can't think what else she might have done.



Carol responds:

Thanks for the concession regarding Richard. As for the Countess, her only other alternative was probably to go directly to Edward and ask for mercy. Since she wasn't likely to become yet another secret wife, that might have been her best option.



Carol

















Reply to sender |

Reply to group |
Reply via web post |
Start a New Topic


Messages in this topic
(144)







Recent Activity:



New Members
1


New Photos
1


New Files
2




Visit Your Group





%

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 20:00:50
fayre rose
i fixed it so it's a little more readable. google the assorted data presented, leave the time out of your search. it's only pertinent to richard. anyhow, you'll get somewhat of a picture as to who richard was.

--- On Wed, 9/26/12, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 2:45 PM
















 









carol wrote



I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard

is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the

Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed

significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is

that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard

propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was

Richard's rising sign, Scorpio.



roslyn replies

wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was based on an individual's birthchart too.



a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.



this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.

Planetary positions



planet sign degree motion



Sun Libra 9°11'42 in house 11 direct



Moon Aquarius 6°27'53 in house 3 direct



Mercury Libra 16°05'29 in house 12 direct



Venus Scorpio 21°58'01 in house 1 direct



Mars Aries 20°04'08 in house 6 retrograde



Jupiter Aquarius 28°09'00 in house 4 retrograde

Saturn Libra 20°10'08 in house 12 direct



Uranus Leo 0°05'10 in house 9 direct



Neptune Libra 2°25'43 in house 11 direct



Pluto Leo 8°43'40 in house 9 direct



True Node Sagittarius 29°22'48 in house retrograde



note in richard's era. the planets uranus, neptune and pluto were not used in astrology.



House positions (Placidus)



Ascendant Scorpio 3°32'38
2nd House Sagittarius 0°59'04



3rd House Capricorn 6°43'19



Imum Coeli Aquarius 17°09'07



5th House Pisces 20°35'12



6th House Aries 15°12'55



Descendant Taurus 3°32'38



8th House Gemini 0°59'04



9th House Cancer 6°43'19



Medium Coeli Leo 17°09'07



11th House Virgo 20°35'12



12th House Libra 15°12'55



--- On Wed, 9/26/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:



From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>

Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

To:

Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 11:39 AM



 



Karen Clark wrote:



> As my current brief is wider that Richard's reign, I don't write off



> historians based on their view of Richard.



Carol responds:



Well, yes, but we're not talking about Richard's reign here. We're talking about him as Duke of Gloucester. (Most of the attacks on Richard, for what it's worth, center on his role as Protector, which lasted only a few months.) But I do understand that you're primarily interested in the Nevilles or Nevills. (Is there a particular reason for dropping the "e"?)



Karen:



When it comes to the Nevills, Pollard really does have a better handle on the subject that most others.



Carol:



I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was Richard's rising sign, Scorpio. Pollard ignores that distinction. I wrote (for my own benefit) a little review that begins, "Though Pollard is not as overtly hostile [to Richard] as Desmond Seward, there is little to recommend this pretty book, whose author feels that the character of Richard as Lord of the North and as king can only be reconciled with that of the "murderous" Protector by making him a hypocrite and even something of a would-be lecher!" (At least he does concede that there is no evidence that Richard was deformed--a point he'll probably

reverse now that the skeleton (if it's Richard's) has been shown to have a raised shoulder--or that he was a sickly child.



Since there's no Tudor slander of the Nevilles, he can depend more on contemporary sources for his analysis of them, which may account for his greater dependability in that regard. I really don't know, but I wouldn't trust anything that Pollard says with regard to Richard.



Karen wrote:



> It seems, regarding Richard, that everyone has an agenda. I've yet to come across anyone whose work I'd call unbiased. I guess that means I shall have to read those who are flagrantly 'for' and those flagrantly 'against' and try to work out just who's been picking what cherries!



Carol responds:



Exactly! The problem is that there are so few recent pro-Richard books and no recent pro-Richard full biography. Kendall (who does concede some of Richard's flaws and wisely, IMO, relegates the discussion of the "princes" to an appendix) is sixty years old--I mean, his book is sixty years old!--and does contain errors, such as his statement that "Jane" Shore (as he calls her) did not marry Thomas Lynom. More recent pro-Richard books tend to focus on specific incidents or periods (though I still recommend "The Maligned King" and John Ashdown-Hill's "The Last Days of Richard III").



Karen:



I've heard such conflicting reports from both ends of the spectrum about David Baldwin that I'm beginning to think (despite the mistakes in his Kingmaker's Sisters)that he might be closer to a middle ground than any of them. Anyone who annoys both the for and against sides as much as his book has done, has to be worth reading!



Carol responds:



Good point! I think his main problem was trying to be too concise, which leaves gaps and ambiguities. He tends to jump to unsupported conclusions.



Karen:



> Yes, Richard did bring about the release of the countess of Warwick. That was a decent thing to do. It doesn't let him off the hook, in my view. Her mistake, in hindsight, was entering sanctuary. But, just imagining her state of mind, I can't think what else she might have done.



Carol responds:



Thanks for the concession regarding Richard. As for the Countess, her only other alternative was probably to go directly to Edward and ask for mercy. Since she wasn't likely to become yet another secret wife, that might have been her best option.



Carol































Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 20:36:18
EileenB
As someone said...a woman is like a teabag...you don't know how strong she is until she is in hot water....

But seriously...I should imagine a noble born woman, with her privileged background, cossetted and servants all over the place, no money worries, with a strong husband would not have a lot of trouble in feeling/being strong and confident. I would like to think these women were also capable of gentleness and kindness especially to their inferiors..as harridans are never attractive...I guess it just depends on the individual.

I once met a woman who told me when she first met her mother-in-law she was told "when I say jump dont just jump ask how high"....Ugh...

Eileen
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> i fixed it so it's a little more readable. google the assorted data presented, leave the time out of your search. it's only pertinent to richard. anyhow, you'll get somewhat of a picture as to who richard was.
>
> --- On Wed, 9/26/12, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 2:45 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> carol wrote
>
>
>
> I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard
>
> is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the
>
> Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed
>
> significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is
>
> that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard
>
> propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was
>
> Richard's rising sign, Scorpio.
>
>
>
> roslyn replies
>
> wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was based on an individual's birthchart too.
>
>
>
> a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
>
>
>
> this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.
>
> Planetary positions
>
>
>
> planet sign degree motion
>
>
>
> Sun Libra 9°11'42 in house 11 direct
>
>
>
> Moon Aquarius 6°27'53 in house 3 direct
>
>
>
> Mercury Libra 16°05'29 in house 12 direct
>
>
>
> Venus Scorpio 21°58'01 in house 1 direct
>
>
>
> Mars Aries 20°04'08 in house 6 retrograde
>
>
>
> Jupiter Aquarius 28°09'00 in house 4 retrograde
>
> Saturn Libra 20°10'08 in house 12 direct
>
>
>
> Uranus Leo 0°05'10 in house 9 direct
>
>
>
> Neptune Libra 2°25'43 in house 11 direct
>
>
>
> Pluto Leo 8°43'40 in house 9 direct
>
>
>
> True Node Sagittarius 29°22'48 in house retrograde
>
>
>
> note in richard's era. the planets uranus, neptune and pluto were not used in astrology.
>
>
>
> House positions (Placidus)
>
>
>
> Ascendant Scorpio 3°32'38
> 2nd House Sagittarius 0°59'04
>
>
>
> 3rd House Capricorn 6°43'19
>
>
>
> Imum Coeli Aquarius 17°09'07
>
>
>
> 5th House Pisces 20°35'12
>
>
>
> 6th House Aries 15°12'55
>
>
>
> Descendant Taurus 3°32'38
>
>
>
> 8th House Gemini 0°59'04
>
>
>
> 9th House Cancer 6°43'19
>
>
>
> Medium Coeli Leo 17°09'07
>
>
>
> 11th House Virgo 20°35'12
>
>
>
> 12th House Libra 15°12'55
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 9/26/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
> To:
>
> Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 11:39 AM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> > As my current brief is wider that Richard's reign, I don't write off
>
>
>
> > historians based on their view of Richard.
>
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
>
>
> Well, yes, but we're not talking about Richard's reign here. We're talking about him as Duke of Gloucester. (Most of the attacks on Richard, for what it's worth, center on his role as Protector, which lasted only a few months.) But I do understand that you're primarily interested in the Nevilles or Nevills. (Is there a particular reason for dropping the "e"?)
>
>
>
> Karen:
>
>
>
> When it comes to the Nevills, Pollard really does have a better handle on the subject that most others.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was Richard's rising sign, Scorpio. Pollard ignores that distinction. I wrote (for my own benefit) a little review that begins, "Though Pollard is not as overtly hostile [to Richard] as Desmond Seward, there is little to recommend this pretty book, whose author feels that the character of Richard as Lord of the North and as king can only be reconciled with that of the "murderous" Protector by making him a hypocrite and even something of a would-be lecher!" (At least he does concede that there is no evidence that Richard was deformed--a point he'll probably
>
> reverse now that the skeleton (if it's Richard's) has been shown to have a raised shoulder--or that he was a sickly child.
>
>
>
> Since there's no Tudor slander of the Nevilles, he can depend more on contemporary sources for his analysis of them, which may account for his greater dependability in that regard. I really don't know, but I wouldn't trust anything that Pollard says with regard to Richard.
>
>
>
> Karen wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems, regarding Richard, that everyone has an agenda. I've yet to come across anyone whose work I'd call unbiased. I guess that means I shall have to read those who are flagrantly 'for' and those flagrantly 'against' and try to work out just who's been picking what cherries!
>
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
>
>
> Exactly! The problem is that there are so few recent pro-Richard books and no recent pro-Richard full biography. Kendall (who does concede some of Richard's flaws and wisely, IMO, relegates the discussion of the "princes" to an appendix) is sixty years old--I mean, his book is sixty years old!--and does contain errors, such as his statement that "Jane" Shore (as he calls her) did not marry Thomas Lynom. More recent pro-Richard books tend to focus on specific incidents or periods (though I still recommend "The Maligned King" and John Ashdown-Hill's "The Last Days of Richard III").
>
>
>
> Karen:
>
>
>
> I've heard such conflicting reports from both ends of the spectrum about David Baldwin that I'm beginning to think (despite the mistakes in his Kingmaker's Sisters)that he might be closer to a middle ground than any of them. Anyone who annoys both the for and against sides as much as his book has done, has to be worth reading!
>
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
>
>
> Good point! I think his main problem was trying to be too concise, which leaves gaps and ambiguities. He tends to jump to unsupported conclusions.
>
>
>
> Karen:
>
>
>
> > Yes, Richard did bring about the release of the countess of Warwick. That was a decent thing to do. It doesn't let him off the hook, in my view. Her mistake, in hindsight, was entering sanctuary. But, just imagining her state of mind, I can't think what else she might have done.
>
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
>
>
> Thanks for the concession regarding Richard. As for the Countess, her only other alternative was probably to go directly to Edward and ask for mercy. Since she wasn't likely to become yet another secret wife, that might have been her best option.
>
>
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 20:37:03
david rayner
Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.

Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.

I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.


________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 


while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
 
in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
 
the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
 
as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
 
anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.

--- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM

 

Marie

Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
point.

Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.

In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
was one of the people who most gained from it.

There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
inheritance.

I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
it.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> . If the Countess was suspected of
> treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> an 'inheritance' for her daughters.

Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
Attainting her and conf






Diabolical Duchess? was Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-26 21:32:58
ellrosa1452
Carol
>>>One more thing I found interesting with regard to the recent discussion in this forum about dynastic marriages: She attributes part of the failure of the House of York to Richard of York's failure to find suitable marriage partners for his sons. Setting aside the other sons, imagine Edward married at an early age (before he set eyes on Eleanor Butler) to a Continental princess.

York was in France in the late 1450s apparently trying to broker a marriage for Edmund as he was keen to provide for him. Johnson's Richard, Duke of York mentions it. I don't know the page number. From memory I think he was trying to broker the deal with Acquitaine. Of course, York was financially in desperate straits at this point so it makes sense. It could also explain why he was not successful in finding suitable marriages for other children. What I find interesting and Johnson makes no mention although it may be that there is no evidence is why Edmund and not Edward. It raises the thought that maybe he had doubts regarding Edward's paternity - just a hypothetical thought.


>>>>It's odd that she says nothing worse about Richard as Edward and Margaret's brother than that he opposed the Treaty of Picquigny because he was "warlike" (an assumption that she doesn't back up) but then takes for granted that he usurped the throne and murdered his nephews.


Also as regards the Treaty of Picquigny, weren't Richard's objections that it was a dishonourable treaty and Edward allowed himself to be bought off. Richard felt the shame of this deeply. In this, he behaved as his father had regarding the war with France. It's tenuous to say the least but perhaps that could explain the "warlike" comment.
Elaine



--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> @Carol - loved this post, especially the digressions!
> @Carol and Marion - thanks so much for comparing the two editions of Weightman. Usually one expects a second edition (if it has the same title) to be an updated version of the first, so it's very valuable to know that the paperback is substantially revised ... would you say NOT for the better? Perhaps difficult to judge without reading them both.
> Thanks anyway, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:44 AM
> Subject: Diabolical Duchess? was Re: David Baldwin
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Carol,
> >
> > It sounds like C. Weightman has revised the print version I own quite thoroughly. Here's why I think so:
> >
> > In her preface and acknowledgements she says she enjoyed living and working in Belgium for 12 years and thanks those who helped her research and publish her book.
> >
> > The prolog begins with Londoners' reactions on the day Margaret's wedding party left for Burgundy. Londoners were relieved to see Warwick in the party because they hoped it meant he'd resolved his conflict with Edward IV, so there would be no renewal of civil war. It ends with praise for Margaret's ability to balance her loyalties to York and Burgundy during her life there. There's nothing about her wedding day or the preceding negotiations in the prolog.
> >
> > The 7 chapters are roughly in chronological order. The 1st chapter includes a lot of information about the duke of York's conflict with Henry VI's decision-makers and profit-takers. My print copy says there was a lot of "historical and fictional imagination" devoted to events at Ludlow. Maybe Weightman wanted to distance her book from all of that. Chapt. 2 covers "the marriage of the century." But it doesn't describe Margaret's state of mind before the ceremony. Everything is 3rd person objective reporting style. Chapter 3 describes her life before Charles the Bold's death. Chapters 4-7 describe her life afterwards.
> >
> > I like Chapt. 7's focus on her love of books and support for William Caxton. I hope the Kindle version hasn't condensed or deleted that too much. I think her encouragement of Caxton's work deserves far more attention than any thing Henry VII or Edward Hall called her.
> >
> > If I could change that subtitle, I'd use "the duchess who helped Caxton bring the printing press to England."
> >
> > Marion
>
> Hi, Marion. This version has chapter titles like "Madame :a Grande" (Chapter 5) followed by epigraphs or quotations, in this case, "The unsteadfastness of this world being" (which strikes me as a rather confusing sentence fragment). Chapter 2 is "Daughter or York" (a flashback to her early years). "The Marriage of the Century" is chapter 1. In other words, it seems that you're right--she has revised it.
>
> But even if the chapter sequence were strictly chronological, it would still be confusing for me because she moves around so much in both place and time. It's disappointing (to me) that she spends so much time on the affairs of Burgundy and so little on Margaret herself as a person. The bits about England and her family were like small bits of candy sprinkled through it.
>
> It's odd that she says nothing worse about Richard as Edward and Margaret's brother than that he opposed the Treaty of Picquigny because he was "warlike" (an assumption that she doesn't back up) but then takes for granted that he usurped the throne and murdered his nephews. Margaret is strangely blase (can't do an accent mark, sorry) about the fate of these "murders" and Richard's role in them, accepting Richard's (supposed) actions without question. At least, she assigns Maximilian a motive for accepting Richard: hope that the "warlike" king will help him to fight against France and support his regency. Later, she has Cecily and her other daughter, the Duchess of Suffolk, accepting Tudor's rule with the same equanimity and Margaret's motives for opposing him (and supporting "pretenders") more economic than dynastic. (She doesn't consider the possibility that Warbeck, at least, may have been what he claimed to be.)
>
> She mentions but doesn't explore the diplomatic exchanges and correspondence between, first, Richard and Margaret and then Cecily and Margaret but assumes that they all used secret agents. Hm. why would Richard want to conceal correspondence with his sister or Cecily with her daughter (even in years when England and Burgundy were at peace) unless it had something to do with Yorkist interests and just possibly with Edward's sons? But it seems that very little of the correspondence has survived. Possibly, they all trusted to their agents' memories to deliver important details rather than committing them to paper.
>
> At any rate, I haven't quite finished the Kindle version (which is probably the same as the paperback), but despite interesting tidbits (such as speculation on the reasons for Richard of York's children's names), I'm not impressed. It seems too detailed in relation to the history of Burgundy and too skimpy with regard to Margaret herself. Maybe there's just not enough information about her to write a regular biography. Funny, though, how Margaret, too, is a victim of Yorkist propaganda, but nobody knows about it because she wasn't a major character in a Shakespeare play.
>
> One more thing I found interesting with regard to the recent discussion in this forum about dynastic marriages: She attributes part of the failure of the House of York to Richard of York's failure to find suitable marriage partners for his sons. Setting aside the other sons, imagine Edward married at an early age (before he set eyes on Eleanor Butler) to a Continental princess. No Woodville marriage, no rebellion or or Warwick, no Tewkesbury or Barnet, no Bosworth. Of course, Richard would probably never have become king, but he might well have been happier that way. But I digress; she also blames Edward for not finding suitable husbands for Richard and George after their father's death. With no Woodville marriage, there might have been English heiresses for them to marry--maybe even the Neville girls with their parents still alive and possessed of their property.
>
> Oh, well. I'm talking might-have-beens now. Might as well talk about what might have been if Edmund had survived!
>
> Carol, with apologies for getting so far off subject
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-26 23:05:37
mariewalsh2003
Sorry, Karen, I'm confused. Are you saying maybe the Countess didn't go to France with her husband in 1470, stay there with him and cross back over to England in the same fleet as Margaret of Anjou?
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> point.
>
> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
>
> In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> was one of the people who most gained from it.
>
> There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> inheritance.
>
> I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
>
> Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them into
> Clarence and Gloucester's hands. This is pure Hicks. Edward already had
> confiscated her lands and put them into Clarence's hands. He could have put
> them into Richard's hands just as easily. %The 1474 settlement was no more
> secure than a royal grant as it was effected by an Act of Parliament that
> could have been repealed at any time (as indeed it was in 1487). In fact the
> 1474 settlement, in that it engineered an inheritance for Isabel and Anne,
> was better than confiscation from the Countess's point of view because it
> settled the lands on tyhe King's brothers AND their wives, the Countess's
> daughters, whereas the previous settlement had been on Clarence as an
> individual.
> You are surely not blaming Edward for finding a way to punish her short of
> attainder - bearing in mind that the punishment for a female traitor was
> death by burning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-27 00:47:31
justcarol67
Carol wrote:>
> <snip>
> I'll have to accept your judgment there since all I've read by Pollard is his his absurdly one-sided "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower," which favors us with such information as the supposed significance (to Rous) of Richard's Scorpio sun sign. The problem is> that Richard's sun sign was Virgo, a point that Rous in his anti-Richard propaganda wasn't about to make, so he chose what he claimed was Richard's rising sign, Scorpio.
>
Roslyn replied:
> wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was based on an individual's birthchart too.
>
> a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
>
> this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.> Planetary positions

Carol responds:

Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know that he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)

I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from the sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words, Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).

I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post. Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.

Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-27 00:59:30
justcarol67
Roslyn wrote:

> this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.
> Planetary positions

> planet
>
> sign
>
> degree
<snip the rest>

Carol again:

Sorry, I didn't see all this earlier (I thought that you had tried to attach a chart or something), but it's all Greek to me in any case. And as I understand it, Rous could not have known Richard's rising sign without having either seen a horoscope cast during Richard's lifetime or knowing the hour of his birth. There's no point in casting his horoscope assuming that the rising sign is correct (even if I understood the significance of the information you've presented here). I'm pretty sure that Rous wanted to make Richard a Scorpio because of the negative implications of that sign, and since Richard's true sun sign was Libra, he either substituted Richard's rising sign for the sun sign or invented a Scorpio rising sign for him since no one (except Cecily Neville, who was unlikely to see Rous's propaganda stating that she gave birth to a monster) would know the hour of Richard's birth and he had free rein to invent one.

Carol

Diabolical Duchess? was Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-27 01:16:17
justcarol67
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
> >>>One more thing I found interesting with regard to the recent discussion in this forum about dynastic marriages: She attributes part of the failure of the House of York to Richard of York's failure to find suitable marriage partners for his sons. Setting aside the other sons, imagine Edward married at an early age (before he set eyes on Eleanor Butler) to a Continental princess.
>
> York was in France in the late 1450s apparently trying to broker a marriage for Edmund as he was keen to provide for him. Johnson's Richard, Duke of York mentions it. I don't know the page number. From memory I think he was trying to broker the deal with Acquitaine. Of course, York was financially in desperate straits at this point so it makes sense. It could also explain why he was not successful in finding suitable marriages for other children. What I find interesting and Johnson makes no mention although it may be that there is no evidence is why Edmund and not Edward. It raises the thought that maybe he had doubts regarding Edward's paternity - just a hypothetical thought.
>
>
> >>>>It's odd that she says nothing worse about Richard as Edward and Margaret's brother than that he opposed the Treaty of Picquigny because he was "warlike" (an assumption that she doesn't back up) but then takes for granted that he usurped the throne and murdered his nephews.
>
>
> Also as regards the Treaty of Picquigny, weren't Richard's objections that it was a dishonourable treaty and Edward allowed himself to be bought off. Richard felt the shame of this deeply. In this, he behaved as his father had regarding the war with France. It's tenuous to say the least but perhaps that could explain the "warlike" comment.
> Elaine

Carol responds:

Just to be clear, I was reviewing Christine Weightman's book and the views expressed are hers, not mine. I don't know why York would seek a marriage for Edmund in particular as opposed to Edward, but I doubt that Edward's paternity was a concern. York stayed with his duchess all those years and they appear to have worked well together as a team. Regarding Picquigny, I agree with you that Richard thought that the treaty was dishonorable and refused to sign it for that reason. Unfortunately, his doing so created the impression that he was an enemy of France. His enemies may well have thought him "warlike," and Weightman (who clearly hasn't spent much time studying Richard) follows their lead.

Carol

The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 01:16:58
mcjohn\_wt\_net
See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III and there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going, "Well, let's take a look, shall we?"

My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct. 2 always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the Gregorian (or possibly the other way around) between our time and the late 1400s? As I recall, the difference comes to something around twelve days. (Astrologers must have a way of dealing with this, of course.) Since astrology was so important to the time, it's not a parenthetical question, exactly what Richard's horoscope looks like.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
[Edited]
> >
> Roslyn replied:
> > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was based on an individual's birthchart too.
> >
> > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> >
> > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.> Planetary positions
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know that he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)
>
> I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from the sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words, Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).
>
> I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post. Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.
>
> Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
>

Re: More on Astrology

2012-09-27 01:23:30
mcjohn\_wt\_net
As I recall (but good look prying outta my brainpan where I saw it), at that time, casting the horoscope of a member of the royal family was considered treasonous if you were Joe Average Subject instead of an authorized astrologer: what you would want to be finding out, of course, was just how long the king was expected to live. You know, so you could help.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Roslyn wrote:
>
> > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.
> > Planetary positions
>
> > planet
> >
> > sign
> >
> > degree
> <snip the rest>
>
> Carol again:
>
> Sorry, I didn't see all this earlier (I thought that you had tried to attach a chart or something), but it's all Greek to me in any case. And as I understand it, Rous could not have known Richard's rising sign without having either seen a horoscope cast during Richard's lifetime or knowing the hour of his birth. There's no point in casting his horoscope assuming that the rising sign is correct (even if I understood the significance of the information you've presented here). I'm pretty sure that Rous wanted to make Richard a Scorpio because of the negative implications of that sign, and since Richard's true sun sign was Libra, he either substituted Richard's rising sign for the sun sign or invented a Scorpio rising sign for him since no one (except Cecily Neville, who was unlikely to see Rous's propaganda stating that she gave birth to a monster) would know the hour of Richard's birth and he had free rein to invent one.
>
> Carol
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-27 01:24:45
Karen Clark
Marie, where would I be saying that? I can't find these words, or any words
even close to these, in my post. Perhaps you've got me mixed up with someone
who doesn't know the story of the countess's life.

Or is it that you have a different standard of 'guilt' and 'innocence' for
the countess (and others) than you do for Richard? Because if going to
France in 1470 &c &c is enough for you to declare the countess guilty of
treason, then the executions (without trial) of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and
Vaughan should be enough to allow someone to declare Richard guilty of
murder. This is a crime of which is often accused, his 'guilt' decided, and
for which is he nearly always excused by his followers. The application of
the Richard Standard of Guilt/Innocence across the board would be a step in
the right direction.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:05:34 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book







Sorry, Karen, I'm confused. Are you saying maybe the Countess didn't go to
France with her husband in 1470, stay there with him and cross back over to
England in the same fleet as Margaret of Anjou?
Marie






Diabolical Duchess? was Re: David Baldwin

2012-09-27 01:26:54
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Well, you know, one shoulder higher than the other = hunchback, so maybe refusal to agree to a dishonorable peace treaty = "You just want to kill everything between you and the sun, don't you, Dick Plantagenet?"

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
[Edit]
> >
> > Also as regards the Treaty of Picquigny, weren't Richard's objections that it was a dishonourable treaty and Edward allowed himself to be bought off. Richard felt the shame of this deeply. In this, he behaved as his father had regarding the war with France. It's tenuous to say the least but perhaps that could explain the "warlike" comment.
> > Elaine
>
> Carol responds:
>
[Edit]

Regarding Picquigny, I agree with you that Richard thought that the treaty was dishonorable and refused to sign it for that reason. Unfortunately, his doing so created the impression that he was an enemy of France. His enemies may well have thought him "warlike," and Weightman (who clearly hasn't spent much time studying Richard) follows their lead.
>
> Carol
>

Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

2012-09-27 01:42:50
mcjohn\_wt\_net
I have been puzzled about that for quite some time. Let us suppose, for purposes of discussion, that Richard behaved in a deliberate and thoughtful manner where he had the ability to do so, and that that was pretty much his default setting unless circumstances prevented it.

Richard was perfectly willing to air his brother's dirty laundry publicly, and did so when the whole precontract-with-Eleanor-Butler thing came to light, but the only traces we have of why Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, and Hastings were executed are hints that they had attempted to kill the Lord Protector. (BTW, Ms. Carson's discussion of the Ambush Theory in "The Maligned King" is fascinating.) Similarly, he didn't have any trouble whatsoever complaining loudly when Edward IV condemned the not-real-swift Clarence to death. (Well... honestly, George, even your family's patience has a limit, and multiple attempted fratricides seems to be it.) Contrast that with the quiet, deft way he handled Elizabeth "Jane" Shore's role in the Hastings conspiracy: into the sackcloth and ashes and walk barefoot to the cathedral, and we'll just bury the details over in this midden while everybody's watching you perp-walk.

Maybe Richard didn't mind talking about the skeletons in the York closet, but hesitated when it was someone else's wardrobe stuffed with bones? After all, he was generous to the survivors of the people he executed, but he refused to set aside the consequences of his brother's inchastity, even when it meant throwing the succession into convulsions.

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, where would I be saying that? I can't find these words, or any words
> even close to these, in my post. Perhaps you've got me mixed up with someone
> who doesn't know the story of the countess's life.
>
> Or is it that you have a different standard of 'guilt' and 'innocence' for
> the countess (and others) than you do for Richard? Because if going to
> France in 1470 &c &c is enough for you to declare the countess guilty of
> treason, then the executions (without trial) of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and
> Vaughan should be enough to allow someone to declare Richard guilty of
> murder. This is a crime of which is often accused, his 'guilt' decided, and
> for which is he nearly always excused by his followers. The application of
> the Richard Standard of Guilt/Innocence across the board would be a step in
> the right direction.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:05:34 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, Karen, I'm confused. Are you saying maybe the Countess didn't go to
> France with her husband in 1470, stay there with him and cross back over to
> England in the same fleet as Margaret of Anjou?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 02:31:35
Maria Torres
Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582. The story, as
our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in
the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the
hole in a straight line. Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at
the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed: "Oy vey!" (This is the
Brooklyn version of history). They calculated that the Julian calendar was
about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly. Protestant
nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal
rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.

If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,
October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within
the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.

From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with
chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the
chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the
lefthand horizon). Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is
in would be the same as the ascendant. As the day continues, the signs
pass through this dividing line until the next dawn. So every two hours of
every day, the ascendant changes. If Richard had been born at dawn, his
ascendant would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon
Sagitarious, and so on. The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to
the person's consciousness.

That's my two cents, for now,

Maria
ejbronte@...
(on George Gershwin's birthday0


On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was
> right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III and
> there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going, "Well, let's
> take a look, shall we?"
>
> My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct. 2
> always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the Gregorian (or
> possibly the other way around) between our time and the late 1400s? As I
> recall, the difference comes to something around twelve days. (Astrologers
> must have a way of dealing with this, of course.) Since astrology was so
> important to the time, it's not a parenthetical question, exactly what
> Richard's horoscope looks like.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> [Edited]
> > >
> > Roslyn replied:
> > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of
> justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of
> richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to
> predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was based
> on an individual's birthchart too.
> > >
> > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> > >
> > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>
> Planetary positions
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know that
> he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to double-check
> my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign was useless (in
> view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian propaganda, so my
> theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible rising sign (how he
> could determine that without knowing the time of Richard's birth or having
> access to a horoscope that Richard himself had requested in his lifetime, I
> don't know. My guess is that is was as fanciful as "two years in his
> mother's womb.)
> >
> > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from the
> sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun sign--or
> "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that Scorpio could
> begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it only a little, but
> as far as I can determine, it begins on or around October 22, so there's no
> way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio (even if Rous were actually
> talking about sun signs(. In other words, Pollard is wrong on all counts
> (and, in any case, he writes as if he believes that these supposed Scorpio
> traits really characterized Richard).
> >
> > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info
> calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you tried to
> attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post. Yahoo Groups
> doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work better, or maybe
> you could put the chart in the Files.
> >
> > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
> >
>
>
>


Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

2012-09-27 02:41:51
Karen Clark
I just think it makes him as capable of doing things that weren't entirely
above board as his predecessors and successors.

We're probably all members of a number of forums and groups, not all
Ricardian. I've noticed, in nearly all of them, anything Richard did is
fine, can be explained, justified or whatever. Most things most other people
did aren't fine, scream of their 'guilt' at various things and can't be
justified in any way. This I fully admit to finding frustrating. Discussions
come to a grinding halt, like the one Marie and I were having. If
circumstantial evidence isn't enough to declare Richard guilty of something,
then it's not enough to declare anyone guilty of anything. Richard did a lot
of good stuff. He also did some bad stuff. I've come to terms with that and
I still find him someone hugely interesting, and worthy of defending when
accused of nonsensical crimes, of which there's not only no evidence, but
common sense would suggest were impossible.

These executions have always puzzled me as well, mcjohn. They remind me of
Warwick's execution without trial of Richard and John Wydeville. Like he had
an opportunity to get rid of some people he really really didn't like and
took it and, at the same time, launch kind of pre-emptive strike designed to
rock the opposition? I really don't know.

Karen

From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:42:49 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings






I have been puzzled about that for quite some time. Let us suppose, for
purposes of discussion, that Richard behaved in a deliberate and thoughtful
manner where he had the ability to do so, and that that was pretty much his
default setting unless circumstances prevented it.

Richard was perfectly willing to air his brother's dirty laundry publicly,
and did so when the whole precontract-with-Eleanor-Butler thing came to
light, but the only traces we have of why Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, and
Hastings were executed are hints that they had attempted to kill the Lord
Protector. (BTW, Ms. Carson's discussion of the Ambush Theory in "The
Maligned King" is fascinating.) Similarly, he didn't have any trouble
whatsoever complaining loudly when Edward IV condemned the not-real-swift
Clarence to death. (Well... honestly, George, even your family's patience
has a limit, and multiple attempted fratricides seems to be it.) Contrast
that with the quiet, deft way he handled Elizabeth "Jane" Shore's role in
the Hastings conspiracy: into the sackcloth and ashes and walk barefoot to
the cathedral, and we'll just bury the details over in this midden while
everybody's watching you perp-walk.

Maybe Richard didn't mind talking about the skeletons in the York closet,
but hesitated when it was someone else's wardrobe stuffed with bones? After
all, he was generous to the survivors of the people he executed, but he
refused to set aside the consequences of his brother's inchastity, even when
it meant throwing the succession into convulsions.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, where would I be saying that? I can't find these words, or any words
> even close to these, in my post. Perhaps you've got me mixed up with someone
> who doesn't know the story of the countess's life.
>
> Or is it that you have a different standard of 'guilt' and 'innocence' for
> the countess (and others) than you do for Richard? Because if going to
> France in 1470 &c &c is enough for you to declare the countess guilty of
> treason, then the executions (without trial) of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and
> Vaughan should be enough to allow someone to declare Richard guilty of
> murder. This is a crime of which is often accused, his 'guilt' decided, and
> for which is he nearly always excused by his followers. The application of
> the Richard Standard of Guilt/Innocence across the board would be a step in
> the right direction.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:05:34 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, Karen, I'm confused. Are you saying maybe the Countess didn't go to
> France with her husband in 1470, stay there with him and cross back over to
> England in the same fleet as Margaret of Anjou?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 04:10:08
fayre rose
yes you have it correct maria.
i used an astrology program to calculate richard's birthdata. i'm assuming it made the adjustment.
i can rerun the chart using oct 12th as the birthdate. there won't be a heck of a lot of change. the moon sign would be definitely different. it rotates through a chart about every 2 days.

what i did not show was the various aspects within richard's chart. the trines, sextiles, squares and conjucts, etc. i just produced a very basic chart.

btw..someone, mcjohn..i think referred to what i did as an "expert", sorry mcjohn i'm not an expert, but i am pretty good at delineating a chart.

if i had the time and inclination (which i don't right now) i'd like to do comparision charts for edward v, and h7 to richard's. although, i really don't think h7 had too much to do with richard's defeat. i think mag the nag and her brother in law jasper did tho.

old morton also played a significant role.

out of curiousity, does anyone know off hand if richard and h7 ever actually met face to face?

--- On Wed, 9/26/12, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:

From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 9:30 PM

Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582.  The story, as
our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in
the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the
hole in a straight line.  Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at
the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed:  "Oy vey!" (This is the
Brooklyn version of history).  They calculated that the Julian calendar was
about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly.  Protestant
nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal
rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.

If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,
October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within
the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.

From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with
chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the
chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the
lefthand horizon).  Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is
in would be the same as the ascendant.  As the day continues, the signs
pass through this dividing line until the next dawn.  So every two hours of
every day, the ascendant changes.  If Richard had been born at dawn, his
ascendant would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon
Sagitarious, and so on.  The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to
the person's consciousness.

That's my two cents, for now,

Maria
ejbronte@...
(on George Gershwin's birthday0


On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was
> right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III and
> there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going, "Well, let's
> take a look, shall we?"
>
> My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct. 2
> always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the Gregorian (or
> possibly the other way around) between our time and the late 1400s? As I
> recall, the difference comes to something around twelve days. (Astrologers
> must have a way of dealing with this, of course.) Since astrology was so
> important to the time, it's not a parenthetical question, exactly what
> Richard's horoscope looks like.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> [Edited]
> > >
> > Roslyn replied:
> > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of
> justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of
> richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to
> predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was based
> on an individual's birthchart too.
> > >
> > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> > >
> > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>
> Planetary positions
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know that
> he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to double-check
> my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign was useless (in
> view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian propaganda, so my
> theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible rising sign (how he
> could determine that without knowing the time of Richard's birth or having
> access to a horoscope that Richard himself had requested in his lifetime, I
> don't know. My guess is that is was as fanciful as "two years in his
> mother's womb.)
> >
> > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from the
> sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun sign--or
> "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that Scorpio could
> begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it only a little, but
> as far as I can determine, it begins on or around October 22, so there's no
> way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio (even if Rous were actually
> talking about sun signs(. In other words, Pollard is wrong on all counts
> (and, in any case, he writes as if he believes that these supposed Scorpio
> traits really characterized Richard).
> >
> > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info
> calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you tried to
> attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post. Yahoo Groups
> doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work better, or maybe
> you could put the chart in the Files.
> >
> > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
> >
>

>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-27 04:59:49
mariewalsh2003
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, where would I be saying that? I can't find these words, or any words
> even close to these, in my post. Perhaps you've got me mixed up with someone
> who doesn't know the story of the countess's life.

Karen this is pointless. You said in your previous post that it was only my opinion that the Countess had committed treason. These actions above are the treasonable acts which she committed, not in my opinion but in fact. We are constantly at cross purposes because - it seems to me, if I may speak frankly - you approach history as a blame game and constantly assume that I am doing the same. I am not. From the viewpoint of Edward IV's kingship Anne Beauchamp had committed treason; from the viewpoint of Henry VI's kingship she had returned to her allegiance. There is no blame attached because I am not looking at the events of the time as a partial Yorkist but am simply looking at the facts, seeing what people did and why. This holds for the business over Beaulieu Sanctuary and the division of the Warwick inheritance as well. You seemed to me to be presenting the Countess as an innocent wronged lady and Edward and his brothers as greedy oppressors, all as bad as each other. As I recall, you blamed Richard - alone or with his brothers, I'm not sure - for keeping her shut up in Beaulieu Abbey. I merely pointed out that in her petition the Countess specifically named King Edward and only King Edward as responsible for her imprisonment there, and that there is evidence that it was Richard who was responsible for getting her out. You now seem to be agreed about this so I am confused as to what the argument is all about. I also pointed out that we do not know whether King Edward would have been prepared to return the Countess's lands but the Countess' petition suggests that it was unlikely, which as Eileen (was it Eileen?) rightly points out would have left Richard needing to get the best deal he could for his wife - and of course himself into the bargain, granted.

You also claim that I reject Hicks because he doesn't like Richard. I frankly said nothing of the sort. I said his interpretations need to be treated with caution because he has an agenda and his statements about the legal situations that applied are frequently incorrect. There are as it happens also Ricardian authors whose writings I treat with caution for similar reasons.
But to stay with Hicks, he tends to present King Edward as unable to stand up to Gloucester in order to blame Richard for things that the sources suggest were actually royal policy.
Richard and George prevented Edward from attainting Warwick and Montagu; that is on record. But it is only Hicks' interpretation that they did so because they wanted to hold Warwick's lands by inheritance rather than royal grant in order to protect themselves from Acts of Resumption (rather than, for instance, to spare their wives' feelings or for old times' sake). I know the Hicks interpretation has been repeated by a lot of writers but that doesn't make it any more sound. As regards the Beauchamp inheritance, avoiding those attainders would have made no difference one way or the other as the lands belonged to the Countess in her own right. As regards the Neville lands, these were subject to a male entail so that by inheritance they would have passed to Montagu's son rather than Isabel or Anne, a point Hicks is happy to acknowledge in the context of 1483 when it suits his argument.
There is another big problem with Hicks' interpretation of Richard's situation re the Neville lands in 1483, and that is that, although Warwick and Montagu had not been attainted by Parliament, in the wake of Archbishop Neville's treason in 1473 King Edward had appointed a commission of oyer and terminer to try them posthumously for their treasons of 1470-1 (plus the Earl of Oxford and a lot of more minor individuals who had fought on the losing side at Barnet). This commission resulted in Warwick and Montagu being outlawed, which served to put the stamp of legality on the seizure of their lands.


Edward avoided invoking the law when it came to his treatment of Anne Beauchamp. But that was the way things happened in those days. I'm not an expert in medieval law, but I do know that "innocent until proven guilty" was not a notion that had yet been arrived at - late 18th century development I think. And the law was such a blunt instrument, with its draconian and barbaric penalties, that justice and mercy often demanded a little bending of it. There is an interesting article in the current Ricardian Bulletin by a legal historian who is beginning to suspect that the interminable delays that you see in a lot of legal cases of the period were perhaps not due, as usually supposed, merely to the slow grinding of an unwieldy system, but were a means of using imprisonment as a punishment rather than what the law too often offered, which was a stark choice between the death penalty on the one hand and acquittal/ pardon on the other.
If Edward had returned the Countess her lands she would have controlled a huge power base, and there was always the danger she might remarry . . . . I am not dfefending his actions, just seeking to work out his possible motivations.
Can we please wrap this up?
Marie


>
> Or is it that you have a different standard of 'guilt' and 'innocence' for
> the countess (and others) than you do for Richard? Because if going to
> France in 1470 &c &c is enough for you to declare the countess guilty of
> treason, then the executions (without trial) of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and
> Vaughan should be enough to allow someone to declare Richard guilty of
> murder. This is a crime of which is often accused, his 'guilt' decided, and
> for which is he nearly always excused by his followers. The application of
> the Richard Standard of Guilt/Innocence across the board would be a step in
> the right direction.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:05:34 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, Karen, I'm confused. Are you saying maybe the Countess didn't go to
> France with her husband in 1470, stay there with him and cross back over to
> England in the same fleet as Margaret of Anjou?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-27 06:05:14
Karen Clark
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 03:59:47 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, where would I be saying that? I can't find these words, or any words
> even close to these, in my post. Perhaps you've got me mixed up with someone
> who doesn't know the story of the countess's life.

>Karen this is pointless. You said in your previous post that it was only my
opinion that the Countess had committed treason. These actions above are the
treasonable acts which she committed, not in my opinion but in fact. We are
constantly at cross purposes because - it seems to me, if I may speak frankly -
you approach history as a blame game and constantly assume that I am doing the
same. I am not. From the viewpoint of Edward IV's kingship Anne Beauchamp had
committed treason; from the viewpoint of Henry VI's kingship she had returned to
her allegiance. There is no blame attached because I am not looking at the
events of the time as a partial Yorkist but am simply looking at the facts,
seeing what people did and why. This holds for the business over Beaulieu
Sanctuary and the division of the Warwick inheritance as well. You seemed to me
to be presenting the Countess as an innocent wronged lady and Edward and his
brothers as greedy oppressors, all as bad as each other. As I recall, you blamed
Richard - alone or with his brothers, I'm not sure - for keeping her shut up in
Beaulieu Abbey. I merely pointed out that in her petition the Countess
specifically named King Edward and only King Edward as responsible for her
imprisonment there, and that there is evidence that it was Richard who was
responsible for getting her out. You now seem to be agreed about this so I am
confused as to what the argument is all about. I also pointed out that we do not
know whether King Edward would have been prepared to return the Countess's lands
but the Countess' petition suggests that it was unlikely, which as Eileen (was
it Eileen?) rightly points out would have left Richard needing to get the best
deal he could for his wife - and of course himself into the bargain, granted.<

€ I didn't say it was your opinion that the countess of Warwick committed
treason; here's what I did say: "As an intellectual exercise, 'did the
Countess of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of
conversation. She probably did." (I"m not sure how 'she probably did' could
have been interpreted as 'that's your opinion');
€ I don't approach history as if it was a blame game, I try to be as
objective as I possibly can; this is why I think I can see both the countess
of Warwick's side and Clarence & Gloucester's; from her perspective, what
was done was terrible; from their perspective, it gave them what they
wanted, quickly and relatively easily;
€ I am not by any means anti-Richard, anti-Yorkist or anti-Edward, perhaps
my willingness to see more than one side has caused this confusion;
€ I stated very clearly that the countess of Warwick probably had committed
treason, but she wasn't brought to trial or attainted through the proper
channels;
€ the best way for Clarence and Gloucester to securely hold property in
their wives' right was through inheritance, if the countess had been
attainted this couldn't have happened;
€ Richard certainly did need to get the best deal he could for himselfŠ and
his wife;
€ as a result of Edward's need to give his brothers some means of support,
the countess of Warwick was impoverished and declared dead;
€ this is not blaming anyone, this is stating the facts as I see them.

>You also claim that I reject Hicks because he doesn't like Richard. I frankly
said nothing of the sort. I said his interpretations need to be treated with
caution because he has an agenda and his statements about the legal situations
that applied are frequently incorrect. There are as it happens also Ricardian
authors whose writings I treat with caution for similar reasons.
But to stay with Hicks, he tends to present King Edward as unable to stand
up to Gloucester in order to blame Richard for things that the sources
suggest were actually royal policy.
Richard and George prevented Edward from attainting Warwick and Montagu;
that is on record. But it is only Hicks' interpretation that they did so
because they wanted to hold Warwick's lands by inheritance rather than royal
grant in order to protect themselves from Acts of Resumption (rather than,
for instance, to spare their wives' feelings or for old times' sake). I know
the Hicks interpretation has been repeated by a lot of writers but that
doesn't make it any more sound. As regards the Beauchamp inheritance,
avoiding those attainders would have made no difference one way or the other
as the lands belonged to the Countess in her own right. As regards the
Neville lands, these were subject to a male entail so that by inheritance
they would have passed to Montagu's son rather than Isabel or Anne, a point
Hicks is happy to acknowledge in the context of 1483 when it suits his
argument.<

€ I haven't said that you (or anyone) rejects Hicks because he doesn't like
Richard, other people have said that;
€ I haven't relied (as I said) on anything Hicks has written to come to the
conclusions I have (I'm assuming he writes about this in his Richard III,
which I have but haven't fully read);
€ Edward couldn't attaint Montagu without attainting Warwick, and that would
have been most inconvenient;
€ you can criticise Hicks all you want, that's entirely your view and your
decision, I haven't relied on him at all in this matter; what I have relied
on are relevant primary sources;
€ common sense tells me that Clarence and Gloucester preferred the
inheritance option, it was more stable and, from their point of view, more
sensible.

>There is another big problem with Hicks' interpretation of Richard's situation
re the Neville lands in 1483, and that is that, although Warwick and Montagu had
not been attainted by Parliament, in the wake of Archbishop Neville's treason in
1473 King Edward had appointed a commission of oyer and terminer to try them
posthumously for their treasons of 1470-1 (plus the Earl of Oxford and a lot of
more minor individuals who had fought on the losing side at Barnet). This
commission resulted in Warwick and Montagu being outlawed, which served to put
the stamp of legality on the seizure of their lands.<

€ but Warwick's lands weren't seized in the first place, they were inherited
by his daughters after their mother was declared dead;
€ and outlawing or attainting Warwick wouldn't have resulted in his widow's
property and title being seized.

>Edward avoided invoking the law when it came to his treatment of Anne
Beauchamp. But that was the way things happened in those days. I'm not an expert
in medieval law, but I do know that "innocent until proven guilty" was not a
notion that had yet been arrived at - late 18th century development I think. And
the law was such a blunt instrument, with its draconian and barbaric penalties,
that justice and mercy often demanded a little bending of it. There is an
interesting article in the current Ricardian Bulletin by a legal historian who
is beginning to suspect that the interminable delays that you see in a lot of
legal cases of the period were perhaps not due, as usually supposed, merely to
the slow grinding of an unwieldy system, but were a means of using imprisonment
as a punishment rather than what the law too often offered, which was a stark
choice between the death penalty on the one hand and acquittal/ pardon on the
other.
If Edward had returned the Countess her lands she would have controlled a
huge power base, and there was always the danger she might remarry . . . . I
am not dfefending his actions, just seeking to work out his possible
motivations.<

€ yes, Edward avoided invoking the law;
€ the 'innocent until proven guilty' bit I was referring to wasn't related
to then but to now; Richard is innocent because his guilt cannot be proved,
yet the countess is guilty of treason, whether it can be proved or not, it's
the double standard that bothers me;
€ the actions of Edward and his brothers made perfect sense to them, they
were absolutely right for them, they just weren't right, in this case, for
the countess of Warwick;
€ yes, as I stated earlier, I'm sure one of the things that was bothering
Edward about the countess being at large was her possible remarriage and
that powerbase you're talking about.

>Can we please wrap this up?<

€ Sure we can. I shall continue to be as objective as I can and try to see
more than one side of the story. And I shall continue to hope that the same
'rules' that are applied to Richard are also applied to others. He wasn't
peripherally involved in the matter of the countess of Warwick, wringing his
hands on the sildelines, hoping his brothers wouldn't be too mean, he was as
involved as they were. And I like Richard far better that way, not a man who
could do no wrong, but a man of his time and status, who engaged in the same
kinds of behaviour (noble or otherwise) that other men of his time and
status did. As I've said before, I'm not the enemy out to rip Richard's
reputation to shreds. I'm more interested in who he might actually have been
rather than just the projections of others.

Karen







Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-27 06:36:34
Karen Clark
Marie, apologies for the messiness of my (hopefully final) response on the
countess of Warwick story. I had neat little dot points, just to keep it
brief, and didn't realise they wouldn't show up.

Karen






Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 08:52:40
Johanne Tournier
Other than the "fact" that Richard gestated for 2 years :-), we don't know
his time of birth, do we? If we don't, then it is not possible to do a
proper horoscope, is it?

While astrology is fun and harmless, it is important (in my view) to know
his actual birth date. So - was it really *our* October 2 or some other date
in our day?

Johanne (who is up early, early, early to work on homework.
:-( )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582. The story, as
our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in
the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the
hole in a straight line. Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at
the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed: "Oy vey!" (This is the
Brooklyn version of history). They calculated that the Julian calendar was
about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly. Protestant
nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal
rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.

If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,
October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within
the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.

From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with
chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the
chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the
lefthand horizon). Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is in
would be the same as the ascendant. As the day continues, the signs pass
through this dividing line until the next dawn. So every two hours of every
day, the ascendant changes. If Richard had been born at dawn, his ascendant
would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon Sagitarious,
and so on. The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to the person's
consciousness.

That's my two cents, for now,

Maria
ejbronte@...
(on George Gershwin's birthday0


On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was
> right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III
> and there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going,
> "Well, let's take a look, shall we?"
>
> My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct.
> 2 always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the
> Gregorian (or possibly the other way around) between our time and the
> late 1400s? As I recall, the difference comes to something around
> twelve days. (Astrologers must have a way of dealing with this, of
> course.) Since astrology was so important to the time, it's not a
> parenthetical question, exactly what Richard's horoscope looks like.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> [Edited]
> > >
> > Roslyn replied:
> > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of
> justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of
> richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to
> predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was
> based on an individual's birthchart too.
> > >
> > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> > >
> > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>
> Planetary positions
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know
> > that
> he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to
> double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign
> was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian
> propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible
> rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of
> Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself
> had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was
> as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)
> >
> > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from
> > the
> sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun
> sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that
> Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it
> only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around
> October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio
> (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words,
> Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he
> believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).
> >
> > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info
> calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you
> tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post.
> Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work
> better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.
> >
> > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
> >
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 09:31:45
Stephen Lark
We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.

There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:
1) Guessing people's birthdays.
2) Twelve possible crossword clues.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: The Horoscope of Richard III



Other than the "fact" that Richard gestated for 2 years :-), we don't know
his time of birth, do we? If we don't, then it is not possible to do a
proper horoscope, is it?

While astrology is fun and harmless, it is important (in my view) to know
his actual birth date. So - was it really *our* October 2 or some other date
in our day?

Johanne (who is up early, early, early to work on homework.
:-( )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582. The story, as
our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in
the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the
hole in a straight line. Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at
the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed: "Oy vey!" (This is the
Brooklyn version of history). They calculated that the Julian calendar was
about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly. Protestant
nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal
rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.

If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,
October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within
the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.

From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with
chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the
chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the
lefthand horizon). Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is in
would be the same as the ascendant. As the day continues, the signs pass
through this dividing line until the next dawn. So every two hours of every
day, the ascendant changes. If Richard had been born at dawn, his ascendant
would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon Sagitarious,
and so on. The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to the person's
consciousness.

That's my two cents, for now,

Maria
ejbronte@...
(on George Gershwin's birthday0

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was
> right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III
> and there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going,
> "Well, let's take a look, shall we?"
>
> My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct.
> 2 always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the
> Gregorian (or possibly the other way around) between our time and the
> late 1400s? As I recall, the difference comes to something around
> twelve days. (Astrologers must have a way of dealing with this, of
> course.) Since astrology was so important to the time, it's not a
> parenthetical question, exactly what Richard's horoscope looks like.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> [Edited]
> > >
> > Roslyn replied:
> > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of
> justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of
> richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to
> predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was
> based on an individual's birthchart too.
> > >
> > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> > >
> > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>
> Planetary positions
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know
> > that
> he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to
> double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign
> was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian
> propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible
> rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of
> Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself
> had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was
> as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)
> >
> > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from
> > the
> sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun
> sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that
> Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it
> only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around
> October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio
> (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words,
> Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he
> believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).
> >
> > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info
> calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you
> tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post.
> Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work
> better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.
> >
> > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
> >
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 09:38:51
Karen Clark
Well, I'm a capricorn, and we don't believe in astrology.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:31:30 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III






We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more
probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.

There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:
1) Guessing people's birthdays.
2) Twelve possible crossword clues.






Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

2012-09-27 10:12:42
Jonathan Evans
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 2:41
Subject: Re: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings


"These executions have always puzzled me as well, mcjohn. They remind me of
Warwick's execution without trial of Richard and John Wydeville. Like he had
an opportunity to get rid of some people he really really didn't like and
took it and, at the same time, launch kind of pre-emptive strike designed to
rock the opposition? I really don't know."

Far from being a schemer biding his time, I get the feeling that Richard could become overwhelmed by emotion and react in the heat of the moment when confronted by perceived lapses in matters of good-faith and loyalty (e.g. his words about Buckingham).  That might also go some way towards explaining his actions at Bosworth, which I can only rationalise in terms of a sudden outpouring of rage and frustration when he found himself in danger of losing control of the battle as a result of the inactivity and dubious trust of others.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 2:41
Subject: Re: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings


 
I just think it makes him as capable of doing things that weren't entirely
above board as his predecessors and successors.

We're probably all members of a number of forums and groups, not all
Ricardian. I've noticed, in nearly all of them, anything Richard did is
fine, can be explained, justified or whatever. Most things most other people
did aren't fine, scream of their 'guilt' at various things and can't be
justified in any way. This I fully admit to finding frustrating. Discussions
come to a grinding halt, like the one Marie and I were having. If
circumstantial evidence isn't enough to declare Richard guilty of something,
then it's not enough to declare anyone guilty of anything. Richard did a lot
of good stuff. He also did some bad stuff. I've come to terms with that and
I still find him someone hugely interesting, and worthy of defending when
accused of nonsensical crimes, of which there's not only no evidence, but
common sense would suggest were impossible.

These executions have always puzzled me as well, mcjohn. They remind me of
Warwick's execution without trial of Richard and John Wydeville. Like he had
an opportunity to get rid of some people he really really didn't like and
took it and, at the same time, launch kind of pre-emptive strike designed to
rock the opposition? I really don't know.

Karen

From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:42:49 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

I have been puzzled about that for quite some time. Let us suppose, for
purposes of discussion, that Richard behaved in a deliberate and thoughtful
manner where he had the ability to do so, and that that was pretty much his
default setting unless circumstances prevented it.

Richard was perfectly willing to air his brother's dirty laundry publicly,
and did so when the whole precontract-with-Eleanor-Butler thing came to
light, but the only traces we have of why Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, and
Hastings were executed are hints that they had attempted to kill the Lord
Protector. (BTW, Ms. Carson's discussion of the Ambush Theory in "The
Maligned King" is fascinating.) Similarly, he didn't have any trouble
whatsoever complaining loudly when Edward IV condemned the not-real-swift
Clarence to death. (Well... honestly, George, even your family's patience
has a limit, and multiple attempted fratricides seems to be it.) Contrast
that with the quiet, deft way he handled Elizabeth "Jane" Shore's role in
the Hastings conspiracy: into the sackcloth and ashes and walk barefoot to
the cathedral, and we'll just bury the details over in this midden while
everybody's watching you perp-walk.

Maybe Richard didn't mind talking about the skeletons in the York closet,
but hesitated when it was someone else's wardrobe stuffed with bones? After
all, he was generous to the survivors of the people he executed, but he
refused to set aside the consequences of his brother's inchastity, even when
it meant throwing the succession into convulsions.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, where would I be saying that? I can't find these words, or any words
> even close to these, in my post. Perhaps you've got me mixed up with someone
> who doesn't know the story of the countess's life.
>
> Or is it that you have a different standard of 'guilt' and 'innocence' for
> the countess (and others) than you do for Richard? Because if going to
> France in 1470 &c &c is enough for you to declare the countess guilty of
> treason, then the executions (without trial) of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and
> Vaughan should be enough to allow someone to declare Richard guilty of
> murder. This is a crime of which is often accused, his 'guilt' decided, and
> for which is he nearly always excused by his followers. The application of
> the Richard Standard of Guilt/Innocence across the board would be a step in
> the right direction.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:05:34 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, Karen, I'm confused. Are you saying maybe the Countess didn't go to
> France with her husband in 1470, stay there with him and cross back over to
> England in the same fleet as Margaret of Anjou?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 10:28:18
Annette Carson
Regarding 15th century dates, by my calculation the Julian year was nine days too long in Richard's lifetime. Although the Gregorian calendar wasn't to be introduced by the pope for another century, we do use the Gregorian today, so for a very few purposes (astrology being one) it might be considered useful to calculate 15th century dates as if the calendar had used the Gregorian correction. Obviously the longer it was left, the greater the discrepancy became, which is why the eventual correction in Protestant England in the 18th century needed to remove eleven days. (The Russians didn't correct it until the Revolution, when their year was 13 days too long, which is why -- if anyone is vaguely interested? -- the first aerobatic loop was performed by Petr Nesterov, not Adolphe Pegoud, as described in my book "Flight Fantastic", end of sermon).

OK, back to Richard's birthday on 2 October Julian, this would have been 11 October Gregorian - see p.299 of "Maligned King" paperback edition. I actually got this wrong in the hardback first edition, and I'll show you where the trap is that I fell into. You need 2 October to follow as the next day after 1 October, therefore you must remove nine days starting with Julian 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 - thus 11 October becomes the new 2 October.

This also explains the odd date of 5 April used for the tax year in England, and why strawberries were ripe on 13 June, but I won't launch into any more sermons.

I initially wondered whether astrologers took any notice of calendar changes and made any adaptations, which didn't seem likely, so I asked around and was told no, the stars remain eternal regardless of what date we use in our calendars. So Rous was just being gratuitously nasty, as so many people were in the 1490s about the late king.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: The Horoscope of Richard III



Other than the "fact" that Richard gestated for 2 years :-), we don't know
his time of birth, do we? If we don't, then it is not possible to do a
proper horoscope, is it?

While astrology is fun and harmless, it is important (in my view) to know
his actual birth date. So - was it really *our* October 2 or some other date
in our day?

Johanne (who is up early, early, early to work on homework.
:-( )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582. The story, as
our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in
the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the
hole in a straight line. Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at
the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed: "Oy vey!" (This is the
Brooklyn version of history). They calculated that the Julian calendar was
about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly. Protestant
nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal
rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.

If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,
October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within
the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.

From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with
chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the
chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the
lefthand horizon). Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is in
would be the same as the ascendant. As the day continues, the signs pass
through this dividing line until the next dawn. So every two hours of every
day, the ascendant changes. If Richard had been born at dawn, his ascendant
would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon Sagitarious,
and so on. The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to the person's
consciousness.

That's my two cents, for now,

Maria
ejbronte@...
(on George Gershwin's birthday0

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was
> right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III
> and there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going,
> "Well, let's take a look, shall we?"
>
> My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct.
> 2 always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the
> Gregorian (or possibly the other way around) between our time and the
> late 1400s? As I recall, the difference comes to something around
> twelve days. (Astrologers must have a way of dealing with this, of
> course.) Since astrology was so important to the time, it's not a
> parenthetical question, exactly what Richard's horoscope looks like.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> [Edited]
> > >
> > Roslyn replied:
> > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of
> justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of
> richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to
> predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was
> based on an individual's birthchart too.
> > >
> > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> > >
> > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>
> Planetary positions
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know
> > that
> he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to
> double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign
> was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian
> propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible
> rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of
> Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself
> had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was
> as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)
> >
> > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from
> > the
> sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun
> sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that
> Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it
> only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around
> October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio
> (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words,
> Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he
> believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).
> >
> > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info
> calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you
> tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post.
> Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work
> better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.
> >
> > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
> >
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





Re: More on Astrology

2012-09-27 10:36:15
Annette Carson
I love your sense of humour! But yes, you're right - as a generality divination and the casting of horoscopes were not against any law in 15th-century England, and many magnates had astrologers and practitioners of the occult in their employ. What could be defined as treasonous was casting the horoscopes of kings and princes without their permission.


----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: More on Astrology



As I recall (but good look prying outta my brainpan where I saw it), at that time, casting the horoscope of a member of the royal family was considered treasonous if you were Joe Average Subject instead of an authorized astrologer: what you would want to be finding out, of course, was just how long the king was expected to live. You know, so you could help.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Roslyn wrote:
>
> > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.
> > Planetary positions
>
> > planet
> >
> > sign
> >
> > degree
> <snip the rest>
>
> Carol again:
>
> Sorry, I didn't see all this earlier (I thought that you had tried to attach a chart or something), but it's all Greek to me in any case. And as I understand it, Rous could not have known Richard's rising sign without having either seen a horoscope cast during Richard's lifetime or knowing the hour of his birth. There's no point in casting his horoscope assuming that the rising sign is correct (even if I understood the significance of the information you've presented here). I'm pretty sure that Rous wanted to make Richard a Scorpio because of the negative implications of that sign, and since Richard's true sun sign was Libra, he either substituted Richard's rising sign for the sun sign or invented a Scorpio rising sign for him since no one (except Cecily Neville, who was unlikely to see Rous's propaganda stating that she gave birth to a monster) would know the hour of Richard's birth and he had free rein to invent one.
>
> Carol
>





Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 10:40:37
Johanne Tournier
Yah, well, I am pretty sure that it is not possible to do a real horoscope
for someone unless you know both the day and the time of his/her birth. So
for Richard, first you've got to nail down the actual day, and then you've
got to know the time of the day that he was born. So - we may know that he
was a Libra, but beyond that, we just can't say.



TTFN J



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III





We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more
probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.

There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:
1) Guessing people's birthdays.
2) Twelve possible crossword clues.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: The Horoscope of Richard III

Other than the "fact" that Richard gestated for 2 years :-), we don't know
his time of birth, do we? If we don't, then it is not possible to do a
proper horoscope, is it?

While astrology is fun and harmless, it is important (in my view) to know
his actual birth date. So - was it really *our* October 2 or some other date
in our day?

Johanne (who is up early, early, early to work on homework.
:-( )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Maria
Torres
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:31 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582. The story, as
our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in
the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the
hole in a straight line. Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at
the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed: "Oy vey!" (This is the
Brooklyn version of history). They calculated that the Julian calendar was
about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly. Protestant
nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal
rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.

If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,
October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within
the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.

From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with
chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the
chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the
lefthand horizon). Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is in
would be the same as the ascendant. As the day continues, the signs pass
through this dividing line until the next dawn. So every two hours of every
day, the ascendant changes. If Richard had been born at dawn, his ascendant
would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon Sagitarious,
and so on. The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to the person's
consciousness.

That's my two cents, for now,

Maria
ejbronte@... <mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>
(on George Gershwin's birthday0

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...
<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net> > wrote:

> **
>
>
> See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was
> right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III
> and there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going,
> "Well, let's take a look, shall we?"
>
> My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct.
> 2 always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the
> Gregorian (or possibly the other way around) between our time and the
> late 1400s? As I recall, the difference comes to something around
> twelve days. (Astrologers must have a way of dealing with this, of
> course.) Since astrology was so important to the time, it's not a
> parenthetical question, exactly what Richard's horoscope looks like.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> [Edited]
> > >
> > Roslyn replied:
> > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of
> justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of
> richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to
> predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was
> based on an individual's birthchart too.
> > >
> > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> > >
> > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>
> Planetary positions
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know
> > that
> he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to
> double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign
> was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian
> propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible
> rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of
> Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself
> had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was
> as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)
> >
> > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from
> > the
> sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun
> sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that
> Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it
> only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around
> October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio
> (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words,
> Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he
> believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).
> >
> > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info
> calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you
> tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post.
> Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work
> better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.
> >
> > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
> >
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links







Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 16:00:36
fayre rose
it is impossible to do an EXACT horoscope unless you have the EXACT date, time and location. the more information you have to put into the calculation the more exact you can be.

you can even back calcuate from the time of death to the time of birth by looking at the planet positions from when the individual died. however, one still needs the exact time of death too.

a rough horoscope can be cast from simply knowing the day and year of birth. add a location, you can hone the horoscope.

compare it to measuring a horse. horses are measured in hands. a hand equals four inches. if i use my hand to make the measurement, i might have a hand width of 4 and one quarter inch. whereas, you might have a hand that measures 3 and 3/4 inches. therefore, on a 10 hand high pony. we are going vary greatly in our measurement of the pony.
your pony is only 9 and 3/4 hands tall, but my pony is over 10 hands.
not really important unless we are wanting to enter our ponies in a show class for ponies 10 hands and over or 10 hands and under. one of us is eliminated because our pony is too short or too tall.
but bring out a measuring tape and voila we hit bang on. both of us are proven to not be accurate. yet we both used our hands to make the measurement. we can enter our ponies in either class. may the one with the best training, conformation and breeding win.r

the more accurate the measuring tool, the more accurate the result. so yes, date, time and place of birth are absolutely necessary to produce an EXACT horoscope. but you still can glean a fair amount of data without the accuracy. we can both say the pony is about 10 hands tall, and we are not totally wrong.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Subject: RE: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 5:40 AM
















 









Yah, well, I am pretty sure that it is not possible to do a real horoscope

for someone unless you know both the day and the time of his/her birth. So

for Richard, first you've got to nail down the actual day, and then you've

got to know the time of the day that he was born. So - we may know that he

was a Libra, but beyond that, we just can't say.



TTFN J



Johanne



From:

[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:32 AM

To:

Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III



We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more

probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.



There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:

1) Guessing people's birthdays.

2) Twelve possible crossword clues.



----- Original Message -----

From: Johanne Tournier

To:

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:52 AM

Subject: RE: The Horoscope of Richard III



Other than the "fact" that Richard gestated for 2 years :-), we don't know

his time of birth, do we? If we don't, then it is not possible to do a

proper horoscope, is it?



While astrology is fun and harmless, it is important (in my view) to know

his actual birth date. So - was it really *our* October 2 or some other date

in our day?



Johanne (who is up early, early, early to work on homework.

:-( )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



-----Original Message-----

From:

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Maria

Torres

Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:31 PM

To:

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III



Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582. The story, as

our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in

the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the

hole in a straight line. Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at

the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed: "Oy vey!" (This is the

Brooklyn version of history). They calculated that the Julian calendar was

about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly. Protestant

nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal

rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.



If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,

October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within

the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.



From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with

chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the

chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the

lefthand horizon). Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is in

would be the same as the ascendant. As the day continues, the signs pass

through this dividing line until the next dawn. So every two hours of every

day, the ascendant changes. If Richard had been born at dawn, his ascendant

would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon Sagitarious,

and so on. The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to the person's

consciousness.



That's my two cents, for now,



Maria

ejbronte@... <mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>

(on George Gershwin's birthday0



On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...

<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net> > wrote:



> **

>

>

> See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was

> right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III

> and there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going,

> "Well, let's take a look, shall we?"

>

> My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct.

> 2 always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the

> Gregorian (or possibly the other way around) between our time and the

> late 1400s? As I recall, the difference comes to something around

> twelve days. (Astrologers must have a way of dealing with this, of

> course.) Since astrology was so important to the time, it's not a

> parenthetical question, exactly what Richard's horoscope looks like.

>

> --- In

<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"

> <justcarol67@...>

> wrote:

> [Edited]

> > >

> > Roslyn replied:

> > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of

> justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of

> richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to

> predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was

> based on an individual's birthchart too.

> > >

> > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.

> > >

> > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>

> Planetary positions

> >

> > Carol responds:

> >

> > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know

> > that

> he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to

> double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign

> was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian

> propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible

> rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of

> Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself

> had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was

> as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)

> >

> > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from

> > the

> sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun

> sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that

> Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it

> only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around

> October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio

> (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words,

> Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he

> believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).

> >

> > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info

> calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you

> tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post.

> Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work

> better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.

> >

> > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer

> >

>

>

>







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



Yahoo! Groups Links



































Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 16:11:49
fayre rose
there ya go. a nice general statement labelling all capricorns as potential non believers. however unless your chart is completely loaded with capricorn planets you are totally inaccurate. here's hoping you have some nice air sign planets in your mix to give you the intelligence to reason where your errors might be. a couple of mutable signs might also help with your flexibility to gather new info and make a change to your thought process.

what can be said about capricorn in a very general way is they are intensely stubborn. taking root and refusing to move even when they are proven to be wrong. oh yeah and they are very ambitious too.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 4:38 AM
















 









Well, I'm a capricorn, and we don't believe in astrology.



Karen



From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>

Reply-To: <>

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:31:30 +0100

To: <>

Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III



We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more

probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.



There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:

1) Guessing people's birthdays.

2) Twelve possible crossword clues.































Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 16:21:35
Karen Clark
Yep, that was a joke.

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III






there ya go. a nice general statement labelling all capricorns as potential
non believers. however unless your chart is completely loaded with capricorn
planets you are totally inaccurate. here's hoping you have some nice air
sign planets in your mix to give you the intelligence to reason where your
errors might be. a couple of mutable signs might also help with your
flexibility to gather new info and make a change to your thought process.

what can be said about capricorn in a very general way is they are intensely
stubborn. taking root and refusing to move even when they are proven to be
wrong. oh yeah and they are very ambitious too.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 4:38 AM



Well, I'm a capricorn, and we don't believe in astrology.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >

Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:31:30 +0100

To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more

probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.

There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:

1) Guessing people's birthdays.

2) Twelve possible crossword clues.













Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 16:23:08
Florence Dove
Cassius:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."




On Sep 27, 2012, at 11:11 AM, fayre rose wrote:

> there ya go. a nice general statement labelling all capricorns as potential non believers. however unless your chart is completely loaded with capricorn planets you are totally inaccurate. here's hoping you have some nice air sign planets in your mix to give you the intelligence to reason where your errors might be. a couple of mutable signs might also help with your flexibility to gather new info and make a change to your thought process.
>
> what can be said about capricorn in a very general way is they are intensely stubborn. taking root and refusing to move even when they are proven to be wrong. oh yeah and they are very ambitious too.
>
> --- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
> To:
> Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 4:38 AM
>
>
>
> Well, I'm a capricorn, and we don't believe in astrology.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>
> Reply-To: <>
>
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:31:30 +0100
>
> To: <>
>
> Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
>
> We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more
>
> probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.
>
> There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:
>
> 1) Guessing people's birthdays.
>
> 2) Twelve possible crossword clues.
>
>
>
>
>
>



Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 16:43:24
Karen Clark
Roslyn

See, if someone didn't believe in astrology, why would they identify their
star sign? And further, why would they think that all representatives of
that sign believed in something one way or the other?

I do hate having to explain jokes. Takes all the fun out of them!

So your follow up advice (assuming that I am a capricorn) which might be
seen by some as a little offensive, isn't really required. But thank you.

Karen


From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:21:22 +1000
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III






Yep, that was a joke.

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@... <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

there ya go. a nice general statement labelling all capricorns as potential
non believers. however unless your chart is completely loaded with capricorn
planets you are totally inaccurate. here's hoping you have some nice air
sign planets in your mix to give you the intelligence to reason where your
errors might be. a couple of mutable signs might also help with your
flexibility to gather new info and make a change to your thought process.

what can be said about capricorn in a very general way is they are intensely
stubborn. taking root and refusing to move even when they are proven to be
wrong. oh yeah and they are very ambitious too.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 4:38 AM

Well, I'm a capricorn, and we don't believe in astrology.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >

Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:31:30 +0100

To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more

probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.

There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:

1) Guessing people's birthdays.

2) Twelve possible crossword clues.















Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 17:37:29
fayre rose
karen, may i suggest you tell someone who cares. something someone says most always offends another person on this forum. diplomacy is not my forte, never has been and never will be. i have way too much sagitarius with scorpio in my chart. my arrows have barbs and are often noted to hit their mark.
 
what you label a joke, i read as an ill informed taunt.
 
yes, taunts can be jokes. but usually they are on the negative side.
 
if you poke a bear, expect it to at least growl.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 11:43 AM



 



Roslyn

See, if someone didn't believe in astrology, why would they identify their
star sign? And further, why would they think that all representatives of
that sign believed in something one way or the other?

I do hate having to explain jokes. Takes all the fun out of them!

So your follow up advice (assuming that I am a capricorn) which might be
seen by some as a little offensive, isn't really required. But thank you.

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:21:22 +1000
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

Yep, that was a joke.

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@... <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

there ya go. a nice general statement labelling all capricorns as potential
non believers. however unless your chart is completely loaded with capricorn
planets you are totally inaccurate. here's hoping you have some nice air
sign planets in your mix to give you the intelligence to reason where your
errors might be. a couple of mutable signs might also help with your
flexibility to gather new info and make a change to your thought process.

what can be said about capricorn in a very general way is they are intensely
stubborn. taking root and refusing to move even when they are proven to be
wrong. oh yeah and they are very ambitious too.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 4:38 AM

Well, I'm a capricorn, and we don't believe in astrology.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >

Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:31:30 +0100

To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more

probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.

There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:

1) Guessing people's birthdays.

2) Twelve possible crossword clues.
















Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 18:37:47
justcarol67
Oh, dear. The thread that started from my remarks about Pollard seems to have gotten out of hand. My point was, first, that Rous, who wrote, "At his [Richard's] nativity Scorpio was in the ascendant, which is the sign of a house of Mars. And like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail," could not possibly have known Richard's rising sign unless he had a copy of an official horoscope cast with Richard's permission or at his request or somehow knew the hour of his birth, and second that *Pollard* is at pains to show that Richard's *sun sign* (not rising sign) might actually have been Scorpio. (He does realize that the whole thing is propaganda, but he fails to see just how far Rous reached to make his shaky point (which fits with Richard's "unnatural" birth).

Pollard also shows a painting of a fully dressed, calm-looking medieval woman undergoing a bloodless Caesarian section (which fits with More's [possibly tongue-in-cheek] speculation about Richard's mother having to deliver the very large child that had been in her womb for two years "not uncut"). I suspect that if Cecily had really undergone a Caesarean section, she would not have survived, much less given birth to another (short-lived) child in 1454. Someone who knows about medieval Caesarean sections, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It really doesn't matter what Richard's birth date would be today since Rous was basing his propaganda on what Richard's zodiacal signs would have been in his own time (and, obviously, the Libra sign would have had exactly the wrong connotations, so he apparently resorted to the rising sign, which could neither be confirmed nor denied. For that reason, there's really no point in casting his horoscope under the assumption that the rising sign really is Scorpio since that idea seems to be Rous's invention. Also, even knowing which planet would be in which house if this really were Richard's horoscope isn't really helpful for those of us who don't understand their significance to a medieval astrologer. (Just for fun, you might explain that, Roslyn. I do appreciate your trying to cast his horoscope, but I'm afraid that its significance is lost on me without an interpretation.)

I'm afraid that all the acrimony on this thread has me thinking of (and wishing for!) the Age of Aquarius:

"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide out planet
And love will steer the stars."

Carol

Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 18:46:47
Karen Clark
Roslyn

That the joke went over your head, and you misinterpreted it as a 'an ill
informed taunt' is not my problem. Neither is your lack of diplomacy. (I'm
still trying to work out who I might have been tauntingŠ Nope, still
stumped!) If you read something that's beyond your level of comprehension, a
hurried and ill informed response doesn't do you any favours. Looking at
something rationally, and not jumping to conclusions, is often a good idea.
Reading posts through a red mist of outrage and high dudgeon doesn't make
for intelligent conversation. Understanding the concept 'joke', and the
difference between that and a 'taunt' might be a good idea as well.

I hope you have a perfectly wonderful day.


Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III






karen, may i suggest you tell someone who cares. something someone says most
always offends another person on this forum. diplomacy is not my forte,
never has been and never will be. i have way too much sagitarius with
scorpio in my chart. my arrows have barbs and are often noted to hit their
mark.

what you label a joke, i read as an ill informed taunt.

yes, taunts can be jokes. but usually they are on the negative side.

if you poke a bear, expect it to at least growl.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 11:43 AM



Roslyn

See, if someone didn't believe in astrology, why would they identify their
star sign? And further, why would they think that all representatives of
that sign believed in something one way or the other?

I do hate having to explain jokes. Takes all the fun out of them!

So your follow up advice (assuming that I am a capricorn) which might be
seen by some as a little offensive, isn't really required. But thank you.

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...
<mailto:ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:21:22 +1000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

Yep, that was a joke.

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@... <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

there ya go. a nice general statement labelling all capricorns as potential
non believers. however unless your chart is completely loaded with capricorn
planets you are totally inaccurate. here's hoping you have some nice air
sign planets in your mix to give you the intelligence to reason where your
errors might be. a couple of mutable signs might also help with your
flexibility to gather new info and make a change to your thought process.

what can be said about capricorn in a very general way is they are intensely
stubborn. taking root and refusing to move even when they are proven to be
wrong. oh yeah and they are very ambitious too.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 4:38 AM

Well, I'm a capricorn, and we don't believe in astrology.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >

Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:31:30 +0100

To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more

probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.

There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:

1) Guessing people's birthdays.

2) Twelve possible crossword clues.



















Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 19:36:04
Karen Clark
Carol

Well done for bringing it back on track. I can't quite get a handle on
Rous's change of heart about Richard. Something for a later date, I think.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:37:43 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III






Oh, dear. The thread that started from my remarks about Pollard seems to
have gotten out of hand. My point was, first, that Rous, who wrote, "At his
[Richard's] nativity Scorpio was in the ascendant, which is the sign of a
house of Mars. And like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a
stinging tail," could not possibly have known Richard's rising sign unless
he had a copy of an official horoscope cast with Richard's permission or at
his request or somehow knew the hour of his birth, and second that *Pollard*
is at pains to show that Richard's *sun sign* (not rising sign) might
actually have been Scorpio. (He does realize that the whole thing is
propaganda, but he fails to see just how far Rous reached to make his shaky
point (which fits with Richard's "unnatural" birth).

Pollard also shows a painting of a fully dressed, calm-looking medieval
woman undergoing a bloodless Caesarian section (which fits with More's
[possibly tongue-in-cheek] speculation about Richard's mother having to
deliver the very large child that had been in her womb for two years "not
uncut"). I suspect that if Cecily had really undergone a Caesarean section,
she would not have survived, much less given birth to another (short-lived)
child in 1454. Someone who knows about medieval Caesarean sections, please
correct me if I'm wrong.

It really doesn't matter what Richard's birth date would be today since Rous
was basing his propaganda on what Richard's zodiacal signs would have been
in his own time (and, obviously, the Libra sign would have had exactly the
wrong connotations, so he apparently resorted to the rising sign, which
could neither be confirmed nor denied. For that reason, there's really no
point in casting his horoscope under the assumption that the rising sign
really is Scorpio since that idea seems to be Rous's invention. Also, even
knowing which planet would be in which house if this really were Richard's
horoscope isn't really helpful for those of us who don't understand their
significance to a medieval astrologer. (Just for fun, you might explain
that, Roslyn. I do appreciate your trying to cast his horoscope, but I'm
afraid that its significance is lost on me without an interpretation.)

I'm afraid that all the acrimony on this thread has me thinking of (and
wishing for!) the Age of Aquarius:

"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide out planet
And love will steer the stars."

Carol









Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 20:01:56
fayre rose
wikipedia has some info regarding houses and the influence on the individual's chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(astrology)

it is not a topic that can be easily answered.

if you or any other member of the forum would like to seriously explore astrology i strongly recommend these books. the three of them equal a university level course on astrology.
The Astrologer's Handbook, The Astrology of Human Relationships, Predictive Astrology.
all three are co-authored by Sakoian and Acker. there is a 4th book, Astrological Patterns co-authored by Sakoian and Caulfield.

i have been studying astrology since 1979. i am far from expert, but i am knowledgeable.
there are also several books that pre-date the age of aquarius interest in this
 Art/Science/Philosophy.
Astrology predates the 3 modern religions and to some it is a religion.
Astrology goes far beyond knowing an individual and what might happen, when and where.

i have just begun to study the pre-reformation style of astrology. i've been very casually at it for about 2 years now.

the medieval people believed it  be used to bring blessings or cast curses. It's maligning began with the protestant reformation.
Since then practioners are often labelled evil or insane, just as it is done to anyone who states they have psychic ability.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 1:37 PM



 



Oh, dear. The thread that started from my remarks about Pollard seems to have gotten out of hand. My point was, first, that Rous, who wrote, "At his [Richard's] nativity Scorpio was in the ascendant, which is the sign of a house of Mars. And like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail," could not possibly have known Richard's rising sign unless he had a copy of an official horoscope cast with Richard's permission or at his request or somehow knew the hour of his birth, and second that *Pollard* is at pains to show that Richard's *sun sign* (not rising sign) might actually have been Scorpio. (He does realize that the whole thing is propaganda, but he fails to see just how far Rous reached to make his shaky point (which fits with Richard's "unnatural" birth).

Pollard also shows a painting of a fully dressed, calm-looking medieval woman undergoing a bloodless Caesarian section (which fits with More's [possibly tongue-in-cheek] speculation about Richard's mother having to deliver the very large child that had been in her womb for two years "not uncut"). I suspect that if Cecily had really undergone a Caesarean section, she would not have survived, much less given birth to another (short-lived) child in 1454. Someone who knows about medieval Caesarean sections, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It really doesn't matter what Richard's birth date would be today since Rous was basing his propaganda on what Richard's zodiacal signs would have been in his own time (and, obviously, the Libra sign would have had exactly the wrong connotations, so he apparently resorted to the rising sign, which could neither be confirmed nor denied. For that reason, there's really no point in casting his horoscope under the assumption that the rising sign really is Scorpio since that idea seems to be Rous's invention. Also, even knowing which planet would be in which house if this really were Richard's horoscope isn't really helpful for those of us who don't understand their significance to a medieval astrologer. (Just for fun, you might explain that, Roslyn. I do appreciate your trying to cast his horoscope, but I'm afraid that its significance is lost on me without an interpretation.)

I'm afraid that all the acrimony on this thread has me thinking of (and wishing for!) the Age of Aquarius:

"When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide out planet
And love will steer the stars."

Carol






Reply via web post
Reply to sender
Reply to group
Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (181)
Recent Activity:

New Photos 1 %2








Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-27 20:27:47
david rayner
Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 

George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.

Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health. Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 

Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c2%a0


The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.


________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.

Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.

I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.

________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 

while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
 
in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
 
the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
 
as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
 
anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.

--- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM

 

Marie

Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
point.

Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.

In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
was one of the people who most gained from it.

There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
inheritance.

I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
it.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> . If the Countess was suspected of
> treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> an 'inheritance' for her daughters.

Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
Attainting her and conf








Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 20:28:29
fayre rose
my my karen how eloquently you lay out your demeaning insults. your verbal trickery might shut down others, but i do think you should also stop viewing this forum via your own red mist of outrage and high dudgeon.
 
you can couch your "research" in poetic turns of phrase to your heart's content. just because something perfumed it does not remove the underlying stench of truth.
 
you enjoy argument vs debate. when intelligent and informed rebuttal has been presented to you. you squirm and twist to come back out on top. verbage is your weapon and defence. very amusing for some and very aggravating for others. especially when you are presenting an emotive rather than a logical response.
 
and i do love that you provide excuses for when you are "caught" in your own eloquence.
pride goeth before a fall. please remove your red mist of outrage shades and put away your high dudgeon prancing pony. you are about to get a strong buck off.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 1:29 PM



 



Roslyn

That the joke went over your head, and you misinterpreted it as a 'an ill
informed taunt' is not my problem. Neither is your lack of diplomacy. (I'm
still trying to work out who I might have been taunting` Nope, still
stumped!) If you read something that's beyond your level of comprehension, a
hurried and ill informed response doesn't do you any favours. Looking at
something rationally, and not jumping to conclusions, is often a good idea.
Reading posts through a red mist of outrage and high dudgeon doesn't make
for intelligent conversation. Understanding the concept 'joke', and the
difference between that and a 'taunt' might be a good idea as well.

I hope you have a perfectly wonderful day.

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

karen, may i suggest you tell someone who cares. something someone says most
always offends another person on this forum. diplomacy is not my forte,
never has been and never will be. i have way too much sagitarius with
scorpio in my chart. my arrows have barbs and are often noted to hit their
mark.

what you label a joke, i read as an ill informed taunt.

yes, taunts can be jokes. but usually they are on the negative side.

if you poke a bear, expect it to at least growl.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 11:43 AM

Roslyn

See, if someone didn't believe in astrology, why would they identify their
star sign? And further, why would they think that all representatives of
that sign believed in something one way or the other?

I do hate having to explain jokes. Takes all the fun out of them!

So your follow up advice (assuming that I am a capricorn) which might be
seen by some as a little offensive, isn't really required. But thank you.

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...
<mailto:ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:21:22 +1000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

Yep, that was a joke.

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@... <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

there ya go. a nice general statement labelling all capricorns as potential
non believers. however unless your chart is completely loaded with capricorn
planets you are totally inaccurate. here's hoping you have some nice air
sign planets in your mix to give you the intelligence to reason where your
errors might be. a couple of mutable signs might also help with your
flexibility to gather new info and make a change to your thought process.

what can be said about capricorn in a very general way is they are intensely
stubborn. taking root and refusing to move even when they are proven to be
wrong. oh yeah and they are very ambitious too.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 4:38 AM

Well, I'm a capricorn, and we don't believe in astrology.

Karen

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
<mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >

Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:31:30 +0100

To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

We know it to be c. October 12, because of the calendar change - more

probably 13/10 because the change came later to Britain.

There are only two real uses for astrology in my world:

1) Guessing people's birthdays.

2) Twelve possible crossword clues.




















Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 20:30:12
fayre rose
my my karen how eloquently you lay out your demeaning insults. your verbal trickery might shut down others, but i do think you should also stop viewing this forum via your own red mist of outrage and high dudgeon.
 
you can couch your "research" in poetic turns of phrase to your heart's content. just because something perfumed it does not remove the underlying stench of truth.
 
you enjoy argument vs debate. when intelligent and informed rebuttal has been presented to you. you squirm and twist to come back out on top. verbage is your weapon and defence. very amusing for some and very aggravating for others. especially when you are presenting an emotive rather than a logical response.
 
and i do love that you provide excuses for when you are "caught" in your own eloquence.
pride goeth before a fall. please remove your red mist of outrage shades and put away your high dudgeon prancing pony. you are about to get a strong buck off.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:


From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 1:29 PM



 



Roslyn

That the joke went over your head, and you misinterpreted it as a 'an ill
informed taunt' is not my problem. Neither is your lack of diplomacy. (I'm
still trying to work out who I might have been taunting` Nope, still
stumped!) If you read something that's beyond your level of comprehension, a
hurried and ill informed response doesn't do you any favours. Looking at
something rationally, and not jumping to conclusions, is often a good idea.
Reading posts through a red mist of outrage and high dudgeon doesn't make
for intelligent conversation. Understanding the concept 'joke', and the
difference between that and a 'taunt' might be a good idea as well.

I hope you have a perfectly wonderful day.

Karen

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

karen, may i suggest you tell someone who cares. something someone says most
always offends another person on this forum. diplomacy is not my forte,
never has been and never will be. i have way too much sagitarius with
scorpio in my chart. my arrows have barbs and are often noted to hit their
mark.

what you label a joke, i read as an ill informed taunt.

yes, taunts can be jokes. but usually they are on the negative side.

if you poke a bear, expect it to at least growl.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Thursday, September 27, 2012, 11:43 AM

Roslyn

See, if someone didn't believe in astrology, why would they identify their
star sign? And further, why would they think that all representatives of
that sign believed in something one way or the other?

I do hate having to explain jokes. Takes all the fun out of them!

So your follow up advice (assuming that I am a capricorn) which might be
seen by some as a little offensive, isn't really required. But thank you.

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...
<mailto:ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:21:22 +1000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

Yep, that was a joke.

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@... <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
<mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

there ya go. a nice general statement labelling all capricorns as potential
non believers. however unless your chart is completely loaded with capricorn
planets you are totally inaccurate. here's hoping you have some nice air
sign planets in your mix to give you the intelligence to reason where your
errors might be. a couple of mutable signs might also help with your
flexibility to gather new info and make a change to your thought process.

what can be said about capricorn in a very general way is they are intensely
stubborn. taking root and refusing to move even when they are proven to be
wrong. oh yeah and they are very ambitious too.

--- On Thu, 9/27/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
To:

Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

2012-09-27 20:50:24
liz williams
Jonathan, I think you're right, especially about Bosworth.  Let's face it, Richard must have thought he would win and fairly easily too, as long as the Stanleys stuck with him.  I doubt if he realised Northumberland would behave the way he did.
 
I've always felt that Richard was very straightforward - there was no sneakiness or dissembling in what he did, good or bad.  He didn't pretend to be anything he wasn't.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 10:12
Subject: Re: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

 
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 2:41
Subject: Re: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings


"These executions have always puzzled me as well, mcjohn. They remind me of
Warwick's execution without trial of Richard and John Wydeville. Like he had
an opportunity to get rid of some people he really really didn't like and
took it and, at the same time, launch kind of pre-emptive strike designed to
rock the opposition? I really don't know."

Far from being a schemer biding his time, I get the feeling that Richard could become overwhelmed by emotion and react in the heat of the moment when confronted by perceived lapses in matters of good-faith and loyalty (e.g. his words about Buckingham).  That might also go some way towards explaining his actions at Bosworth, which I can only rationalise in terms of a sudden outpouring of rage and frustration when he found himself in danger of losing control of the battle as a result of the inactivity and dubious trust of others.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Karen Clark <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 2:41
Subject: Re: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings


 
I just think it makes him as capable of doing things that weren't entirely
above board as his predecessors and successors.

We're probably all members of a number of forums and groups, not all
Ricardian. I've noticed, in nearly all of them, anything Richard did is
fine, can be explained, justified or whatever. Most things most other people
did aren't fine, scream of their 'guilt' at various things and can't be
justified in any way. This I fully admit to finding frustrating. Discussions
come to a grinding halt, like the one Marie and I were having. If
circumstantial evidence isn't enough to declare Richard guilty of something,
then it's not enough to declare anyone guilty of anything. Richard did a lot
of good stuff. He also did some bad stuff. I've come to terms with that and
I still find him someone hugely interesting, and worthy of defending when
accused of nonsensical crimes, of which there's not only no evidence, but
common sense would suggest were impossible.

These executions have always puzzled me as well, mcjohn. They remind me of
Warwick's execution without trial of Richard and John Wydeville. Like he had
an opportunity to get rid of some people he really really didn't like and
took it and, at the same time, launch kind of pre-emptive strike designed to
rock the opposition? I really don't know.

Karen

From: mcjohn_wt_net <mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:42:49 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

I have been puzzled about that for quite some time. Let us suppose, for
purposes of discussion, that Richard behaved in a deliberate and thoughtful
manner where he had the ability to do so, and that that was pretty much his
default setting unless circumstances prevented it.

Richard was perfectly willing to air his brother's dirty laundry publicly,
and did so when the whole precontract-with-Eleanor-Butler thing came to
light, but the only traces we have of why Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, and
Hastings were executed are hints that they had attempted to kill the Lord
Protector. (BTW, Ms. Carson's discussion of the Ambush Theory in "The
Maligned King" is fascinating.) Similarly, he didn't have any trouble
whatsoever complaining loudly when Edward IV condemned the not-real-swift
Clarence to death. (Well... honestly, George, even your family's patience
has a limit, and multiple attempted fratricides seems to be it.) Contrast
that with the quiet, deft way he handled Elizabeth "Jane" Shore's role in
the Hastings conspiracy: into the sackcloth and ashes and walk barefoot to
the cathedral, and we'll just bury the details over in this midden while
everybody's watching you perp-walk.

Maybe Richard didn't mind talking about the skeletons in the York closet,
but hesitated when it was someone else's wardrobe stuffed with bones? After
all, he was generous to the survivors of the people he executed, but he
refused to set aside the consequences of his brother's inchastity, even when
it meant throwing the succession into convulsions.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, where would I be saying that? I can't find these words, or any words
> even close to these, in my post. Perhaps you've got me mixed up with someone
> who doesn't know the story of the countess's life.
>
> Or is it that you have a different standard of 'guilt' and 'innocence' for
> the countess (and others) than you do for Richard? Because if going to
> France in 1470 &c &c is enough for you to declare the countess guilty of
> treason, then the executions (without trial) of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and
> Vaughan should be enough to allow someone to declare Richard guilty of
> murder. This is a crime of which is often accused, his 'guilt' decided, and
> for which is he nearly always excused by his followers. The application of
> the Richard Standard of Guilt/Innocence across the board would be a step in
> the right direction.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:05:34 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, Karen, I'm confused. Are you saying maybe the Countess didn't go to
> France with her husband in 1470, stay there with him and cross back over to
> England in the same fleet as Margaret of Anjou?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>








Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 20:54:03
mariewalsh2003
The other problem is that in describing Richard's birth date and rising sign, Rows actually gave us Clarence's birthday, not Richard's. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he knew Clarence's rising sign given his position.
Marie
P.S. I wonder how many times Rows clumsily rewrote his history for different patrons....


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, dear. The thread that started from my remarks about Pollard seems to have gotten out of hand. My point was, first, that Rous, who wrote, "At his [Richard's] nativity Scorpio was in the ascendant, which is the sign of a house of Mars. And like a scorpion he combined a smooth front with a stinging tail," could not possibly have known Richard's rising sign unless he had a copy of an official horoscope cast with Richard's permission or at his request or somehow knew the hour of his birth, and second that *Pollard* is at pains to show that Richard's *sun sign* (not rising sign) might actually have been Scorpio. (He does realize that the whole thing is propaganda, but he fails to see just how far Rous reached to make his shaky point (which fits with Richard's "unnatural" birth).
>
> Pollard also shows a painting of a fully dressed, calm-looking medieval woman undergoing a bloodless Caesarian section (which fits with More's [possibly tongue-in-cheek] speculation about Richard's mother having to deliver the very large child that had been in her womb for two years "not uncut"). I suspect that if Cecily had really undergone a Caesarean section, she would not have survived, much less given birth to another (short-lived) child in 1454. Someone who knows about medieval Caesarean sections, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> It really doesn't matter what Richard's birth date would be today since Rous was basing his propaganda on what Richard's zodiacal signs would have been in his own time (and, obviously, the Libra sign would have had exactly the wrong connotations, so he apparently resorted to the rising sign, which could neither be confirmed nor denied. For that reason, there's really no point in casting his horoscope under the assumption that the rising sign really is Scorpio since that idea seems to be Rous's invention. Also, even knowing which planet would be in which house if this really were Richard's horoscope isn't really helpful for those of us who don't understand their significance to a medieval astrologer. (Just for fun, you might explain that, Roslyn. I do appreciate your trying to cast his horoscope, but I'm afraid that its significance is lost on me without an interpretation.)
>
> I'm afraid that all the acrimony on this thread has me thinking of (and wishing for!) the Age of Aquarius:
>
> "When the moon is in the Seventh House
> And Jupiter aligns with Mars
> Then peace will guide out planet
> And love will steer the stars."
>
> Carol
>

Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

2012-09-27 21:08:46
Brian
Before I would be comfortable judging Richard on this, I would want to know facts that are simply not available to us. Some people believe the Woodvilles sought to ambush Richard, and that various dirty deeds were carried out by various members of that family. It is 'interesting' that Elizabeth felt the need to flee to sanctuary and that bro Edward fled to Brittany, pausing on the way to steal a huge sum of money from a merchant ship. Maybe they were just nervous types, but that behaviour does not speak of innocence to me.

Now, *if* this is how things were I feel Richard was quite justified in beheading Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey, as they were obviously up to their necks in a conspiracy against his life. He might have chosen to be merciful, but he was not obliged to be. His tutors in life were Warwick and Edward IV, neither of whom were noted for dishing out community service to those that crossed them.

Of course *if* Anthony and Co were totally innocent, and Richard topped them because he didn't like the cut of their jib, that would be be another dish of butter altogether. It would be much harder to defend Richard, who would have fallen to the moral level of (say) Henry Bolingbroke.

My problem is I don't know for a *fact* what the situation was. I'm pretty sure it was closer to version (a) above that version (b), but I can't prove it. It all rests on supposition and speculation based on how various people acted.

Brian W




> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 2:41
> Subject: Re: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings
>
>
> "These executions have always puzzled me as well, mcjohn. They remind me of
> Warwick's execution without trial of Richard and John Wydeville. Like he had
> an opportunity to get rid of some people he really really didn't like and
> took it and, at the same time, launch kind of pre-emptive strike designed to
> rock the opposition? I really don't know."
>
>

Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

2012-09-27 22:05:20
Judy Thomson
As H.D. Thoreau once said of circumstantial evidence: "...a trout in the milk pail, for example...," we sense the fishiness of some their actions, but we just have no harder facts - certainly no documents - we can rely upon. The one comfort for me is knowing version (b) isn't a whit more provable. On either side, we're stuck with a lot of "what if?"s.

And clearly a great deal of personal emotion....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings


 
Before I would be comfortable judging Richard on this, I would want to know facts that are simply not available to us. Some people believe the Woodvilles sought to ambush Richard, and that various dirty deeds were carried out by various members of that family. It is 'interesting' that Elizabeth felt the need to flee to sanctuary and that bro Edward fled to Brittany, pausing on the way to steal a huge sum of money from a merchant ship. Maybe they were just nervous types, but that behaviour does not speak of innocence to me.

Now, *if* this is how things were I feel Richard was quite justified in beheading Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey, as they were obviously up to their necks in a conspiracy against his life. He might have chosen to be merciful, but he was not obliged to be. His tutors in life were Warwick and Edward IV, neither of whom were noted for dishing out community service to those that crossed them.

Of course *if* Anthony and Co were totally innocent, and Richard topped them because he didn't like the cut of their jib, that would be be another dish of butter altogether. It would be much harder to defend Richard, who would have fallen to the moral level of (say) Henry Bolingbroke.

My problem is I don't know for a *fact* what the situation was. I'm pretty sure it was closer to version (a) above that version (b), but I can't prove it. It all rests on supposition and speculation based on how various people acted.

Brian W

> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 2:41
> Subject: Re: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings
>
>
> "These executions have always puzzled me as well, mcjohn. They remind me of
> Warwick's execution without trial of Richard and John Wydeville. Like he had
> an opportunity to get rid of some people he really really didn't like and
> took it and, at the same time, launch kind of pre-emptive strike designed to
> rock the opposition? I really don't know."
>
>




Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-27 22:33:06
ellrosa1452
Hi Annette
Can you please contact me offline? I tried to email you and it bounced back.
Elaine

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding 15th century dates, by my calculation the Julian year was nine days too long in Richard's lifetime. Although the Gregorian calendar wasn't to be introduced by the pope for another century, we do use the Gregorian today, so for a very few purposes (astrology being one) it might be considered useful to calculate 15th century dates as if the calendar had used the Gregorian correction. Obviously the longer it was left, the greater the discrepancy became, which is why the eventual correction in Protestant England in the 18th century needed to remove eleven days. (The Russians didn't correct it until the Revolution, when their year was 13 days too long, which is why -- if anyone is vaguely interested? -- the first aerobatic loop was performed by Petr Nesterov, not Adolphe Pegoud, as described in my book "Flight Fantastic", end of sermon).
>
> OK, back to Richard's birthday on 2 October Julian, this would have been 11 October Gregorian - see p.299 of "Maligned King" paperback edition. I actually got this wrong in the hardback first edition, and I'll show you where the trap is that I fell into. You need 2 October to follow as the next day after 1 October, therefore you must remove nine days starting with Julian 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 - thus 11 October becomes the new 2 October.
>
> This also explains the odd date of 5 April used for the tax year in England, and why strawberries were ripe on 13 June, but I won't launch into any more sermons.
>
> I initially wondered whether astrologers took any notice of calendar changes and made any adaptations, which didn't seem likely, so I asked around and was told no, the stars remain eternal regardless of what date we use in our calendars. So Rous was just being gratuitously nasty, as so many people were in the 1490s about the late king.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:52 AM
> Subject: RE: The Horoscope of Richard III
>
>
>
> Other than the "fact" that Richard gestated for 2 years :-), we don't know
> his time of birth, do we? If we don't, then it is not possible to do a
> proper horoscope, is it?
>
> While astrology is fun and harmless, it is important (in my view) to know
> his actual birth date. So - was it really *our* October 2 or some other date
> in our day?
>
> Johanne (who is up early, early, early to work on homework.
> :-( )
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
> - Jesus of Nazareth
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:31 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
>
> Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582. The story, as
> our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in
> the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the
> hole in a straight line. Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at
> the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed: "Oy vey!" (This is the
> Brooklyn version of history). They calculated that the Julian calendar was
> about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly. Protestant
> nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal
> rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.
>
> If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,
> October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within
> the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.
>
> From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with
> chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the
> chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the
> lefthand horizon). Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is in
> would be the same as the ascendant. As the day continues, the signs pass
> through this dividing line until the next dawn. So every two hours of every
> day, the ascendant changes. If Richard had been born at dawn, his ascendant
> would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon Sagitarious,
> and so on. The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to the person's
> consciousness.
>
> That's my two cents, for now,
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
> (on George Gershwin's birthday0
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was
> > right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III
> > and there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going,
> > "Well, let's take a look, shall we?"
> >
> > My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct.
> > 2 always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the
> > Gregorian (or possibly the other way around) between our time and the
> > late 1400s? As I recall, the difference comes to something around
> > twelve days. (Astrologers must have a way of dealing with this, of
> > course.) Since astrology was so important to the time, it's not a
> > parenthetical question, exactly what Richard's horoscope looks like.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67"
> > <justcarol67@>
> > wrote:
> > [Edited]
> > > >
> > > Roslyn replied:
> > > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of
> > justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of
> > richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to
> > predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was
> > based on an individual's birthchart too.
> > > >
> > > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> > > >
> > > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>
> > Planetary positions
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know
> > > that
> > he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to
> > double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign
> > was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian
> > propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible
> > rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of
> > Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself
> > had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was
> > as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)
> > >
> > > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from
> > > the
> > sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun
> > sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that
> > Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it
> > only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around
> > October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio
> > (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words,
> > Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he
> > believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info
> > calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you
> > tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post.
> > Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work
> > better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.
> > >
> > > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-27 23:19:39
mariewalsh2003
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.

Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-

25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)


29 June 1471 – Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).

Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.

At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.

April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.

23 February 1475 – An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
"The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."

Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.

>
> Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.

Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.

Marie


Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
>
> Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
>
> Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
>
> I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
>
> while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
>  
> in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
>  
> the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
>  
> as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
>  
> anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
>
>  
>
> Marie
>
> Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> point.
>
> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
>
> In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> was one of the people who most gained from it.
>
> There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> inheritance.
>
> I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
>
> Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> Attainting her and conf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-28 01:36:19
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Forgive me if I walk it back a sec to the amateurs' starting line, if I may. Are we talking about the question about Rous praising Richard extravagantly when he was king, and then vilifying him after Henry took the throne? (I feel for the guy. "Er... yes, your majesty, I *did* say something both nice *and* truthful about your predecessor, but what I *really* meant was that he was a kinked-up, murderin' ball of slime. That phrase musta got changed to 'One of the greatest kings God hath seen fit to send us poor war-weary souls' when it went through the spell checker.")

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Well done for bringing it back on track. I can't quite get a handle on
> Rous's change of heart about Richard. Something for a later date, I think.
>
> Karen

Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-28 01:52:46
Karen Clark
Yep, that would be it!

Karen
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:36:17 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III






Forgive me if I walk it back a sec to the amateurs' starting line, if I may.
Are we talking about the question about Rous praising Richard extravagantly
when he was king, and then vilifying him after Henry took the throne? (I
feel for the guy. "Er... yes, your majesty, I *did* say something both nice
*and* truthful about your predecessor, but what I *really* meant was that he
was a kinked-up, murderin' ball of slime. That phrase musta got changed to
'One of the greatest kings God hath seen fit to send us poor war-weary
souls' when it went through the spell checker.")

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Well done for bringing it back on track. I can't quite get a handle on
> Rous's change of heart about Richard. Something for a later date, I think.
>
> Karen









Re: From Beaufort to Hastings

2012-09-28 01:55:40
mcjohn\_wt\_net
I have the feeling that when the DNA results come back (regardless of what they are), there's gonna be this huge upswell of interest in the era and its personages, and we might find a right good passel of bowtied researchers putting down the bound parchments for 1558 and picking up the volume for the late 1400s.

That's an excellent point: we can conject till we all get dizzy and have to sit down for a minute, but nothin' beats fact.

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Before I would be comfortable judging Richard on this, I would want to know facts that are simply not available to us. Some people believe the Woodvilles sought to ambush Richard, and that various dirty deeds were carried out by various members of that family. It is 'interesting' that Elizabeth felt the need to flee to sanctuary and that bro Edward fled to Brittany, pausing on the way to steal a huge sum of money from a merchant ship. Maybe they were just nervous types, but that behaviour does not speak of innocence to me.
>
> Now, *if* this is how things were I feel Richard was quite justified in beheading Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey, as they were obviously up to their necks in a conspiracy against his life. He might have chosen to be merciful, but he was not obliged to be. His tutors in life were Warwick and Edward IV, neither of whom were noted for dishing out community service to those that crossed them.
>
> Of course *if* Anthony and Co were totally innocent, and Richard topped them because he didn't like the cut of their jib, that would be be another dish of butter altogether. It would be much harder to defend Richard, who would have fallen to the moral level of (say) Henry Bolingbroke.
>
> My problem is I don't know for a *fact* what the situation was. I'm pretty sure it was closer to version (a) above that version (b), but I can't prove it. It all rests on supposition and speculation based on how various people acted.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 2:41
> > Subject: Re: Re: From Beaufort to Hastings
> >
> >
> > "These executions have always puzzled me as well, mcjohn. They remind me of
> > Warwick's execution without trial of Richard and John Wydeville. Like he had
> > an opportunity to get rid of some people he really really didn't like and
> > took it and, at the same time, launch kind of pre-emptive strike designed to
> > rock the opposition? I really don't know."
> >
> >
>

Re: Rous's Reversal

2012-09-28 02:10:47
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Man, that is *painful* to think about, Rous in a little room, holding a quill, staring at the ink bottle and mumbling to his desk blotter, "Come on, man, this is safety for your wife and children, they're sunk without it, just slang the guy you admired and get it over with!"

I wonder if he ended up a branch office of Morton's Vilification of the Departed, Ltd.?

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yep, that would be it!
>
> Karen
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:36:17 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forgive me if I walk it back a sec to the amateurs' starting line, if I may.
> Are we talking about the question about Rous praising Richard extravagantly
> when he was king, and then vilifying him after Henry took the throne? (I
> feel for the guy. "Er... yes, your majesty, I *did* say something both nice
> *and* truthful about your predecessor, but what I *really* meant was that he
> was a kinked-up, murderin' ball of slime. That phrase musta got changed to
> 'One of the greatest kings God hath seen fit to send us poor war-weary
> souls' when it went through the spell checker.")
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > Well done for bringing it back on track. I can't quite get a handle on
> > Rous's change of heart about Richard. Something for a later date, I think.
> >
> > Karen

Re: Rous's Reversal

2012-09-28 02:19:46
Karen Clark
I'm also thinking about his connection to the countess of Warwick and her
hopes of getting her property back. A little oily flattery (and it's
corollary) to grease the wheels, maybe.

Karen

From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 01:10:46 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Rous's Reversal






Man, that is *painful* to think about, Rous in a little room, holding a
quill, staring at the ink bottle and mumbling to his desk blotter, "Come on,
man, this is safety for your wife and children, they're sunk without it,
just slang the guy you admired and get it over with!"

I wonder if he ended up a branch office of Morton's Vilification of the
Departed, Ltd.?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yep, that would be it!
>
> Karen
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:36:17 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forgive me if I walk it back a sec to the amateurs' starting line, if I may.
> Are we talking about the question about Rous praising Richard extravagantly
> when he was king, and then vilifying him after Henry took the throne? (I
> feel for the guy. "Er... yes, your majesty, I *did* say something both nice
> *and* truthful about your predecessor, but what I *really* meant was that he
> was a kinked-up, murderin' ball of slime. That phrase musta got changed to
> 'One of the greatest kings God hath seen fit to send us poor war-weary
> souls' when it went through the spell checker.")
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > Well done for bringing it back on track. I can't quite get a handle on
> > Rous's change of heart about Richard. Something for a later date, I think.
> >
> > Karen









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 07:30:17
oregon\_katy
--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May

[snip]


Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" -- mentally and physically handicapped from birth?

Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?

Katy

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 08:10:29
Karen Clark
Katy

Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
Clarence's son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a
goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind
me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. I'm fairly sure it was at
during his trial. Possibly the Milanese ambassador? They jotted down a lot
of interesting snippets.) There's no concrete evidence regarding his mental
faculties, so impossible to say, really.

Edward couldn't have held his father's lands in the first place, as his
father was attainted. His title (earl of Warwick) he had from his mother.
I'm assuming he didn't hold his mother's lands, either, which there'd have
been no legal justification for.

The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.

My understanding was that George Nevill (Montagu's son) was stripped of his
title because he couldn't maintain it, and he couldn't maintain it because
someone else had the income from his lands, many of which would have come
from his mother, who had definitely not been attainted or troubled much at
all after Barnet. Her second husband, William Norreys, was closely connected
to Edward IV, and the king himself might have brought the marriage about.
(That's very much in the conjectural stage at the moment.)

Karen

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:30:16 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and
from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of
George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped
of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates
as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died
in May

[snip]

Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" --
mentally and physically handicapped from birth?

Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?

Katy









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 09:48:50
Annette Carson
Actually you are thinking of George Neville, Lord Latimer, third son of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland and Joan Beaufort. He took part in military activities but was declared mentally infirm by about 1461 when care of his estates was in the hands of his nephew Warwick (the Kingmaker). He had a son Henry and grandson Richard. Died 1469.

There is no reliable evidence that the mental health of Edward, Earl of Warwick was anything but sound. Tales of mental frailty centre on a chance remark capable of several interpretations.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May

[snip]

Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" -- mentally and physically handicapped from birth?

Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?

Katy




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 10:07:34
mariewalsh2003
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Katy
>
> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> Clarence's son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
> social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a
> goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind
> me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. I'm fairly sure it was at
> during his trial. Possibly the Milanese ambassador? They jotted down a lot
> of interesting snippets.) There's no concrete evidence regarding his mental
> faculties, so impossible to say, really.

No, it was after his death, from one of the Tudor "histyorians". Was it Vergil, anybody?

>
> Edward couldn't have held his father's lands in the first place, as his
> father was attainted. His title (earl of Warwick) he had from his mother.
> I'm assuming he didn't hold his mother's lands, either, which there'd have
> been no legal justification for.

You're asssuming wrong. He did inherit his mother's lands. Of course, he didn't actually hold them, being a minor. His wardship went from King Edward to Dorset, and then in 1483 he was placed in Anne Neville's household. Then in 1487 Henry VII allowwed parliament to grant the Countess' petition to repeal the 1474 Act of Parliament that had made her legally dead, and the lands thus became her property again. Immediately and oddly - particularly since in her petition she had requested that the lands be secure against the King - she gave them all up to King Henry, who granted her back just a few manors. Warwick was in the Tower by this time, of course, so he had the Countess over a barrel.
I don't think there is any chance that Warwick was an idiot born. Umpteen extant documents refer to his lands as being in the King's custody during his minority. Had he been an idiot the custody of them would have been settled on a third party (the King, perhaps?) for life, a sort of power of attorney with extra benefits arrangement.
Marie

>
> The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.
>
> My understanding was that George Nevill (Montagu's son) was stripped of his
> title because he couldn't maintain it, and he couldn't maintain it because
> someone else had the income from his lands, many of which would have come
> from his mother, who had definitely not been attainted or troubled much at
> all after Barnet. Her second husband, William Norreys, was closely connected
> to Edward IV, and the king himself might have brought the marriage about.
> (That's very much in the conjectural stage at the moment.)
>
> Karen

I'd like to look more into what happened to his mother's lands too. I know the daughters eventually managed to get them parcelled out between them. I doubt the income from them would have been sufficient to support an earldom, though. There was a particular level of income you needed in order to be an earl - anybody know what it was?
Marie

>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:30:16 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and
> from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of
> George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
> >
> > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped
> of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates
> as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died
> in May
>
> [snip]
>
> Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" --
> mentally and physically handicapped from birth?
>
> Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: The Horoscope of Richard III

2012-09-28 10:23:24
Annette Carson
Elaine, hi - I'm awfully sorry but I don't seem to have your email address. I don't mind giving mine again in case that helps: please type email AT annettecarson.plus.com (with no spaces, and substituting @ for AT of course).


----- Original Message -----
From: ellrosa1452
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III



Hi Annette
Can you please contact me offline? I tried to email you and it bounced back.
Elaine

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding 15th century dates, by my calculation the Julian year was nine days too long in Richard's lifetime. Although the Gregorian calendar wasn't to be introduced by the pope for another century, we do use the Gregorian today, so for a very few purposes (astrology being one) it might be considered useful to calculate 15th century dates as if the calendar had used the Gregorian correction. Obviously the longer it was left, the greater the discrepancy became, which is why the eventual correction in Protestant England in the 18th century needed to remove eleven days. (The Russians didn't correct it until the Revolution, when their year was 13 days too long, which is why -- if anyone is vaguely interested? -- the first aerobatic loop was performed by Petr Nesterov, not Adolphe Pegoud, as described in my book "Flight Fantastic", end of sermon).
>
> OK, back to Richard's birthday on 2 October Julian, this would have been 11 October Gregorian - see p.299 of "Maligned King" paperback edition. I actually got this wrong in the hardback first edition, and I'll show you where the trap is that I fell into. You need 2 October to follow as the next day after 1 October, therefore you must remove nine days starting with Julian 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 - thus 11 October becomes the new 2 October.
>
> This also explains the odd date of 5 April used for the tax year in England, and why strawberries were ripe on 13 June, but I won't launch into any more sermons.
>
> I initially wondered whether astrologers took any notice of calendar changes and made any adaptations, which didn't seem likely, so I asked around and was told no, the stars remain eternal regardless of what date we use in our calendars. So Rous was just being gratuitously nasty, as so many people were in the 1490s about the late king.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:52 AM
> Subject: RE: The Horoscope of Richard III
>
>
>
> Other than the "fact" that Richard gestated for 2 years :-), we don't know
> his time of birth, do we? If we don't, then it is not possible to do a
> proper horoscope, is it?
>
> While astrology is fun and harmless, it is important (in my view) to know
> his actual birth date. So - was it really *our* October 2 or some other date
> in our day?
>
> Johanne (who is up early, early, early to work on homework.
> :-( )
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
> - Jesus of Nazareth
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Maria Torres
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:31 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Horoscope of Richard III
>
> Hi All -- The Gregorian calendar went into effect in 1582. The story, as
> our mother used to tell it is that in the Vatican was a dome with a hole in
> the center, and when the summer solstice arrived, the sun shone through the
> hole in a straight line. Well, that solstice, the Pope went up to look at
> the light, saw it was way, way, off and exclaimed: "Oy vey!" (This is the
> Brooklyn version of history). They calculated that the Julian calendar was
> about 10 days behind the times and adjusted things accordingly. Protestant
> nations refused, for a century or two, to acquiesce to the Papal
> rearrangement, so Western Europe followed two calendars for a while.
>
> If, in 1452, they followed the Gregorian instead of the Julian calendar,
> October 2 would then have been around October 12 or so, still well within
> the sign of Libra, so Richard would still have been a Libran.
>
> From far off days when I tried to become mathematically proficient with
> chartes and such, I remember that the ascendant is the dividing line in the
> chart between the twelfth and the first house (the triangle slice on the
> lefthand horizon). Starting at dawn (6:00 a.m.) the sign that the sun is in
> would be the same as the ascendant. As the day continues, the signs pass
> through this dividing line until the next dawn. So every two hours of every
> day, the ascendant changes. If Richard had been born at dawn, his ascendant
> would have been Libra; from 8:00 - 10:00 Scorpio; 10:00 - noon Sagitarious,
> and so on. The ascendant would, as I recall, be a keynote to the person's
> consciousness.
>
> That's my two cents, for now,
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
> (on George Gershwin's birthday0
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > See, this is what I love about this board. You ask if a chronicler was
> > right in his astrological assessment of the character of Richard III
> > and there is an expert to pop right up with his horoscope, going,
> > "Well, let's take a look, shall we?"
> >
> > My only question about Scorpio/Libra/Aquarius, etc., is this: was Oct.
> > 2 always Oct. 2? Wasn't there a reform from the Julian to the
> > Gregorian (or possibly the other way around) between our time and the
> > late 1400s? As I recall, the difference comes to something around
> > twelve days. (Astrologers must have a way of dealing with this, of
> > course.) Since astrology was so important to the time, it's not a
> > parenthetical question, exactly what Richard's horoscope looks like.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67"
> > <justcarol67@>
> > wrote:
> > [Edited]
> > > >
> > > Roslyn replied:
> > > > wrong, richard, born oct 2, was a libra. the sign of the scales of
> > justice. a person's natal horoscope was very important to people of
> > richard's era. aside from revealing one's personality, it was used to
> > predict future events in the individual's life. medical treatment was
> > based on an individual's birthchart too.
> > > >
> > > > a scorpio rising or ascendent is different than the sun sign.
> > > >
> > > > this is richard's birth info calculated with a scorpio ascendent.>
> > Planetary positions
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Sorry. I do knos that he was born October 2 and actually also know
> > > that
> > he was a Libra, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to
> > double-check my post. I was trying to say that Richard's true sun sign
> > was useless (in view of the astrology of the times) for anti-Ricardian
> > propaganda, so my theory is that Rous substituted Richard's ostensible
> > rising sign (how he could determine that without knowing the time of
> > Richard's birth or having access to a horoscope that Richard himself
> > had requested in his lifetime, I don't know. My guess is that is was
> > as fanciful as "two years in his mother's womb.)
> > >
> > > I also know (thanks to Marie) that the rising sign is different from
> > > the
> > sun sign. It's Pollard who claims that Scorpio was Richard's sun
> > sign--or "birth sign," as he calls it. Pollard tries to argue that
> > Scorpio could begin as early as October 5 and that Rous stretched it
> > only a little, but as far as I can determine, it begins on or around
> > October 22, so there's no way that Richard's sun sign could be Scorpio
> > (even if Rous were actually talking about sun signs(. In other words,
> > Pollard is wrong on all counts (and, in any case, he writes as if he
> > believes that these supposed Scorpio traits really characterized Richard).
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you were trying to do with "Richard's birth info
> > calculated with a Scorpio ascendant: Planetary positions." If you
> > tried to attach or copy something here, it doesn't appear in the post.
> > Yahoo Groups doesn't allow attachments. A link to a webpage would work
> > better, or maybe you could put the chart in the Files.
> > >
> > > Carol, hoping that this post is a little clearer
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 12:46:45
marionziemke
I think I read somewhere that his sister used that term.


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Katy
> >
> > Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> > Clarence's son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
> > social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a
> > goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind
> > me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. I'm fairly sure it was at
> > during his trial. Possibly the Milanese ambassador? They jotted down a lot
> > of interesting snippets.) There's no concrete evidence regarding his mental
> > faculties, so impossible to say, really.
>
> No, it was after his death, from one of the Tudor "histyorians". Was it Vergil, anybody?
>
> >
> > Edward couldn't have held his father's lands in the first place, as his
> > father was attainted. His title (earl of Warwick) he had from his mother.
> > I'm assuming he didn't hold his mother's lands, either, which there'd have
> > been no legal justification for.
>
> You're asssuming wrong. He did inherit his mother's lands. Of course, he didn't actually hold them, being a minor. His wardship went from King Edward to Dorset, and then in 1483 he was placed in Anne Neville's household. Then in 1487 Henry VII allowwed parliament to grant the Countess' petition to repeal the 1474 Act of Parliament that had made her legally dead, and the lands thus became her property again. Immediately and oddly - particularly since in her petition she had requested that the lands be secure against the King - she gave them all up to King Henry, who granted her back just a few manors. Warwick was in the Tower by this time, of course, so he had the Countess over a barrel.
> I don't think there is any chance that Warwick was an idiot born. Umpteen extant documents refer to his lands as being in the King's custody during his minority. Had he been an idiot the custody of them would have been settled on a third party (the King, perhaps?) for life, a sort of power of attorney with extra benefits arrangement.
> Marie
>
> >
> > The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> > to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> > also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.
> >
> > My understanding was that George Nevill (Montagu's son) was stripped of his
> > title because he couldn't maintain it, and he couldn't maintain it because
> > someone else had the income from his lands, many of which would have come
> > from his mother, who had definitely not been attainted or troubled much at
> > all after Barnet. Her second husband, William Norreys, was closely connected
> > to Edward IV, and the king himself might have brought the marriage about.
> > (That's very much in the conjectural stage at the moment.)
> >
> > Karen
>
> I'd like to look more into what happened to his mother's lands too. I know the daughters eventually managed to get them parcelled out between them. I doubt the income from them would have been sufficient to support an earldom, though. There was a particular level of income you needed in order to be an earl - anybody know what it was?
> Marie
>
> >
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:30:16 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > Book
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner
> > <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and
> > from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of
> > George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
> > >
> > > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped
> > of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates
> > as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died
> > in May
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" --
> > mentally and physically handicapped from birth?
> >
> > Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 13:45:00
Karen Clark
Thanks for the clarification, Marie. And, yes, without the Nevill side of
his inheritance, young George stood no chance of maintaining a dukedom. The
countess of Warwick handing her property over as soon as she regained it has
always struck me a as a bit odd. Definitely something to follow up, if
that's at all possible.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:07:31 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Katy
>
> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> Clarence's son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
> social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a
> goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind
> me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. I'm fairly sure it was at
> during his trial. Possibly the Milanese ambassador? They jotted down a lot
> of interesting snippets.) There's no concrete evidence regarding his mental
> faculties, so impossible to say, really.

No, it was after his death, from one of the Tudor "histyorians". Was it
Vergil, anybody?

>
> Edward couldn't have held his father's lands in the first place, as his
> father was attainted. His title (earl of Warwick) he had from his mother.
> I'm assuming he didn't hold his mother's lands, either, which there'd have
> been no legal justification for.

You're asssuming wrong. He did inherit his mother's lands. Of course, he
didn't actually hold them, being a minor. His wardship went from King Edward
to Dorset, and then in 1483 he was placed in Anne Neville's household. Then
in 1487 Henry VII allowwed parliament to grant the Countess' petition to
repeal the 1474 Act of Parliament that had made her legally dead, and the
lands thus became her property again. Immediately and oddly - particularly
since in her petition she had requested that the lands be secure against the
King - she gave them all up to King Henry, who granted her back just a few
manors. Warwick was in the Tower by this time, of course, so he had the
Countess over a barrel.
I don't think there is any chance that Warwick was an idiot born. Umpteen
extant documents refer to his lands as being in the King's custody during
his minority. Had he been an idiot the custody of them would have been
settled on a third party (the King, perhaps?) for life, a sort of power of
attorney with extra benefits arrangement.
Marie

>
> The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.
>
> My understanding was that George Nevill (Montagu's son) was stripped of his
> title because he couldn't maintain it, and he couldn't maintain it because
> someone else had the income from his lands, many of which would have come
> from his mother, who had definitely not been attainted or troubled much at
> all after Barnet. Her second husband, William Norreys, was closely connected
> to Edward IV, and the king himself might have brought the marriage about.
> (That's very much in the conjectural stage at the moment.)
>
> Karen

I'd like to look more into what happened to his mother's lands too. I know
the daughters eventually managed to get them parcelled out between them. I
doubt the income from them would have been sufficient to support an earldom,
though. There was a particular level of income you needed in order to be an
earl - anybody know what it was?
Marie

>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:30:16 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and
> from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of
> George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
> >
> > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped
> of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the
estates
> as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died
> in May
>
> [snip]
>
> Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" --
> mentally and physically handicapped from birth?
>
> Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 14:45:22
Douglas Eugene Stamate
david rayner wrote:
"Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home
and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the
property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).
George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped
of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the
estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never
married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have
descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same
Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major
motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to
Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health. Although
Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to
become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it
stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government
hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer
immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being
reversed on appeal in the next generation.
Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by
Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford
The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.

The paragraph beginning "Pollard..." is the one I find
interesting/troubling. While I understand that Richard may not have wanted
to decrease the number of estates under his control, why would keeping
control of Middleham be a "major motive" for Richard's becoming king? If
Richard was so determined to retain Middleham, why not, upon Latimer
reaching his majority, simply provide Latimer with a different set of
holdings of equal value elsewhere? All legally done up, of course.
Pollard's reasoning is strange, to say the least. Richard wanted to keep
possession of Middleham to pass it onto his son, so Richard takes the crown,
thus making his son Prince of Wales and ensuring that Edward will reside
somewhere other than Middleham?
I'm definitely going to get a hold of Pollard's book, but something tells me
I might maybe perhaps be just a little disappointed.
And not just by some of his conclusions, but more importantly, how he
reached them.

Doug

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 16:21:29
Judy Thomson
Hi, Annette,

Just speculation, but what if Edward were a stutterer? When I saw The King's Speech, I remember this lightning bolt moment of What if? regarding the boy. My researches have yielded the name of one Alice Burgh, charged with his care (and well paid for it) by Richard; Alice may also have been mother of John of Gloucester, as she was recipient of a generous L20 annuity for "special causes and considerations," which coincided with visits to Pontefract by the Duke of Gloucester.

A stutterer in those days might well have been considered mentally defective by many.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
Actually you are thinking of George Neville, Lord Latimer, third son of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland and Joan Beaufort. He took part in military activities but was declared mentally infirm by about 1461 when care of his estates was in the hands of his nephew Warwick (the Kingmaker). He had a son Henry and grandson Richard. Died 1469.

There is no reliable evidence that the mental health of Edward, Earl of Warwick was anything but sound. Tales of mental frailty centre on a chance remark capable of several interpretations.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May

[snip]

Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" -- mentally and physically handicapped from birth?

Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?

Katy






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 17:43:56
oregon\_katy
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Actually you are thinking of George Neville, Lord Latimer, third son of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland and Joan Beaufort. He took part in military activities but was declared mentally infirm by about 1461 when care of his estates was in the hands of his nephew Warwick (the Kingmaker). He had a son Henry and grandson Richard. Died 1469.

Thanks, Annette. I knew it was some George Neville, and I knew that Edward, Earl of Warwick was not who I was thinking of. I pinned the "idiot born" phrase that belonged to Joan Faulconberg onto George Neville, I now realize.


Katy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: oregon_katy
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 7:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
> >
> > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May
>
> [snip]
>
> Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" -- mentally and physically handicapped from birth?
>
> Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 17:53:56
oregon\_katy
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>


> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> Clarence's son.

No, actually, I was closer to the mark than that,as Annette indicated. I merely had the wrong George Neville -- I knew that it was far from settled that Warwick had any mental defect.


> The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.


I'm not clear on what that phrase means, either. Maybe nothing other than a statement of fact -- she was mentally deficient from her earliest days. (She was capable of childbearing, though, and evidently that was what mattered.) I have some vague recollection that the term was in a legal document, though, and in that case it may have more weight and significance. My thought was "as opposed to what -- an idiot made?" Maybe such distinction would be in reference to having the mental capacity to enter into or acquiesce to some contract or binding arrangement. Marriage? Acquiring or releasing property? Clauses of a will? In that case, it could be quite important to determine if there was ever some period in which a person who was too mentally deficient to be a party to a contract was that way when the contract was made or became that way afterward, and when that sad situation started.

Katy

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 18:40:48
Karen Clark
Yes, Latimer completely slipped my mind completely!

She remarried shortly after her first husband died. I've got the details
somewhere, it's not on my hard drive, so it must be in a folder. I'll fish
it out in the morning. I seem to recall there was a bit of bother about it.
The marriage was considered legal, though secret (or secretish), so she must
have been considered capable of making a contract. Her first marriage took
place, as you're no doubt aware, when she was a child. I'll see what I can
find in the daylight.

Karen

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:53:55 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>

> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> Clarence's son.

No, actually, I was closer to the mark than that,as Annette indicated. I
merely had the wrong George Neville -- I knew that it was far from settled
that Warwick had any mental defect.

> The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.

I'm not clear on what that phrase means, either. Maybe nothing other than a
statement of fact -- she was mentally deficient from her earliest days.
(She was capable of childbearing, though, and evidently that was what
mattered.) I have some vague recollection that the term was in a legal
document, though, and in that case it may have more weight and significance.
My thought was "as opposed to what -- an idiot made?" Maybe such
distinction would be in reference to having the mental capacity to enter
into or acquiesce to some contract or binding arrangement. Marriage?
Acquiring or releasing property? Clauses of a will? In that case, it could
be quite important to determine if there was ever some period in which a
person who was too mentally deficient to be a party to a contract was that
way when the contract was made or became that way afterward, and when that
sad situation started.

Katy









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 19:09:55
justcarol67
"Annette Carson" wrote:
<snip>
>
> There is no reliable evidence that the mental health of Edward, Earl of Warwick was anything but sound. Tales of mental frailty centre on a chance remark capable of several interpretations.
> Regards, Annette

Carol responds:

Still, though, Henry VII kept him in the Tower (not, I suspect, in the royal apartments) from the time he was about ten years old until the time he was executed for ostensibly plotting with Perkin Warbeck. He can't have had much company or much education. For a little while, Richard had placed him in the care of his wife, Anne Neville, who was the child's aunt by both blood and marriage and then in the care of his nephew and Edward's cousin, John, Earl of Lincoln, but once Henry got hold of him, he probably had no tutor or lessons of any kind. Just guessing, but I can see how his mental development could easily have been stunted.

Posted in a hurry with no time to check facts.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 19:35:09
Annette Carson
Regarding mental incapacity, I think life must have been pretty grim for the mentally infirm. Judy mentioned stuttering and "The King's Speech", and it's true that even eighty years ago stuttering was equated with mental inadequacy.

However, regarding the possible stutter, I do think it's easy to be misled by a chance remark from an era where every tiny scrap of information is precious - e.g. "Richard liveth yet" which apparently was a phrase added just to make the metre scan. I have enormous sympathy for young Edward of Warwick, and wouldn't want his memory to be saddled with an erroneous assumption.

As for 'idiot born', perhaps the way George Neville is described may throw some light on this, as it sounds rather as if he was initially able to marry and carry out military duties, AND look after his own interests, until declared mentally infirm later in life. So in his case, perhaps not born that way ?

----- Original Message -----
From: oregon_katy
To:
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>

> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> Clarence's son.

No, actually, I was closer to the mark than that,as Annette indicated. I merely had the wrong George Neville -- I knew that it was far from settled that Warwick had any mental defect.

> The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.

I'm not clear on what that phrase means, either. Maybe nothing other than a statement of fact -- she was mentally deficient from her earliest days. (She was capable of childbearing, though, and evidently that was what mattered.) I have some vague recollection that the term was in a legal document, though, and in that case it may have more weight and significance. My thought was "as opposed to what -- an idiot made?" Maybe such distinction would be in reference to having the mental capacity to enter into or acquiesce to some contract or binding arrangement. Marriage? Acquiring or releasing property? Clauses of a will? In that case, it could be quite important to determine if there was ever some period in which a person who was too mentally deficient to be a party to a contract was that way when the contract was made or became that way afterward, and when that sad situation started.

Katy




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 19:59:24
oregon\_katy
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Regarding mental incapacity, I think life must have been pretty grim for the mentally infirm. Judy mentioned stuttering and "The King's Speech", and it's true that even eighty years ago stuttering was equated with mental inadequacy.


Thinking of stuttering leads me to think of deafness or very poor eyesight as being conditions that could make a person considered mentally deficient. Especially deafness -- chances are, a deaf child couldn't speak intelligibly, either, and would miss out on all sorts of clues to the world around him or her that hearing people are aware of, and thus could be considered rather dim-witted.

Katy

Pollard

2012-09-28 21:50:16
justcarol67
david rayner wrote:
> <snip> in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head. Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health. <snip>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford
> The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.

Doug responded:
> The paragraph beginning "Pollard..." is the one I find interesting/troubling. <snip>
> Pollard's reasoning is strange, to say the least. <snip>
> I'm definitely going to get a hold of Pollard's book, but something tells me I might maybe perhaps be just a little disappointed.
> And not just by some of his conclusions, but more importantly, how he reached them.

Carol writes:

Oh, dear, yes. Pollard, Hicks, and Wikipedia--not exactly the way to find a balanced perspective on Richard's motives. Here's a quote from Pollard that will show exactly how "objective " her is: "Richard III's usurpation was hardly a consequence {of Edward's admittedly unwise polities}. Richard III's seizure of the throne arose out of the unpredictable ambition and opportunism of one man, ruthlessly exploiting the circumstances of an unforeseen minority." These few sentences make Pollard's agenda clear. Any good that Richard did in his lifetime was hypocrisy in Pollard's view.

The idea that Archbishop Bourchier was "reluctant" to crown Richard also comes, as far as I can determine, from Pollard, who states that the archbishop was conspicuous by his absence from the banquet that followed Richard's coronation (106) and that he "pointedly" refrained from actively supporting Richard's kingship--no source provided for either assertion (thought Pollard does concede that the archbishop didn't actively support Tudor, either). I suspect that the archbishop's age had more to do with his lack of enthusiasm for banquets and political causes than any feelings about Richard, whom he had apparently had in his household when Richard was a child--the archbishop was about seventy-nine in 1483, a great age for that era. For all we know, he may have been just as reluctant if not more so to crown Henry VII in 1485 when he was even older (and presumably infirm since he died the following year).

Pollard does make some interesting points, but his bias informs (or infects) nearly every word of his book, and he makes far too many unsupported assumptions.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-28 23:21:51
justcarol67
Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip>
> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of Clarence's son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. <snip>

Carol responds:

I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." Kendall, who suggests that Edward of Warwick may have been "a retarded child" but presents the idea that the fourteen-year confinement in the Tower may have affected his mind in a note cites his source as York Records, p. 112. That seems like an odd source to me, but I'd appreciate it if someone with access to that source would check it.

I'm pretty sure that poor Warwick didn't have a trial. His execution on trumped-up charges was judicial murder, pure and simple.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 00:07:54
oregon\_katy
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of Clarence's son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
> social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon."


"Doesn't know a capon from a goose" -- as you said, what is that supposed to mean? Figures of speech are a minefield, especially across the gulf of 500 years. Shakespeare, for instance, is full of them, and I doubt that anyone has nailed down just what is meant by all of them.

I'm thinking of the euphemisms, puns, contemporary references, allusions, and so all in use today. My mother-in-law used to say that someone didn't know a lemon from a peach, meaning he didn't know when he was well off on the subject of female companionship. Following that theme, maybe the woman had round heels, not meaning an orthopedic problem. Maybe she was fast, not meaning she was a member of a track and field team. Maybe she was a bar fly, not meaning an insect. Maybe she'd been up the river a time or two, not meaning she enjoyed canoeing. Maybe she was a tramp, not meaning a transient. But maybe she appealed to him because she had big knockers, not meaning the kind on a front door, or an impressive rack, not meaning a hunting trophy. But she might have been someone's trophy wife, not meaning he shot her and had her mounted. Or arm candy, not meaning a confection. And maybe he wore his heart on his sleeve...

Then there is the matter of Americans trying to interpret Britishisms, even contemporary ones. A female golfer wearing knickers probably evokes a different metal image in the US than in the UK.

And then there's irony, which is why we have emoticons, I guess. Thomas More and Erasmus of Rotterdam exchanged some correspondence about More's selection to be in a delegation, in which they were fretting about whether a horse of suitable mettle and spirit could be found for him so he could demonstrate his skillful horsemanship. That's the interpretation at face value. You'd think he was an equipoise marvel if that's all you had to go by. Actually, we know from other sources that More was an atrocious horseman who could barely stay in a saddle.

I keep thinking that we may know what someone said centuries ago (or last week) but we can be less certain about what they meant.


Katy

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 00:39:43
justcarol67
Carol earlier:
> >
> > I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." <snipped>
>
Katy responded:
> "Doesn't know a capon from a goose" -- as you said, what is that supposed to mean? Figures of speech are a minefield, especially across the gulf of 500 years. <snip>

Carol again:

Well, actually, I was concerned about the wording since the source will be easier to find if we quote correctly.

But with regard to the meaning, since it's been interpreted to mean that Edward of Warwick was mentally deficient (not at all unlikely given the circumstances of his confinement, whatever his natural intelligence might have been), it would seem to suggest that he can't see a type of difference that would be obvious to his contemporaries. I think that even you or I would recognize a capon (cooked or uncooked) as a chicken (though we might not know that it had been castrated). Similarly, we would know a goose (cooked or uncooked) from a chicken of any kind (though we might not know a goose from a gander unless the goose was being trailed by a gaggle of goslings).

I suspect, too, that there's an element of sexual humor in the metaphor (as in all the jokes about Henry VI's empty scabbard). The fourteenth through sixteenth centuries lacked our Puritanical sensibilities (which persist in some quarters despite the prevalence of four-letters and sexual imagery virtually everywhere). At any rate, I can imagine the men of that era making a similar comparison between a female dog in heat (unlike me with all my inhibitions, they wouldn't hesitate to use the b---- word) and a tomcat. Even in our time, a person who couldn't perceive that difference would be considered mentally deficient.

Just my take on the matter, based on having read so much Shakespeare. I could be completely wrong.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 00:57:57
Judy Thomson
Hmmm. This poses the possibility of another take: That the poor boy remained wholly innocent of, um, female company, unlike most English youths of the time. Just one more thought, thrown into the mix, eh?

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
Carol earlier:
> >
> > I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." <snipped>
>
Katy responded:
> "Doesn't know a capon from a goose" -- as you said, what is that supposed to mean? Figures of speech are a minefield, especially across the gulf of 500 years. <snip>

Carol again:

Well, actually, I was concerned about the wording since the source will be easier to find if we quote correctly.

But with regard to the meaning, since it's been interpreted to mean that Edward of Warwick was mentally deficient (not at all unlikely given the circumstances of his confinement, whatever his natural intelligence might have been), it would seem to suggest that he can't see a type of difference that would be obvious to his contemporaries. I think that even you or I would recognize a capon (cooked or uncooked) as a chicken (though we might not know that it had been castrated). Similarly, we would know a goose (cooked or uncooked) from a chicken of any kind (though we might not know a goose from a gander unless the goose was being trailed by a gaggle of goslings).

I suspect, too, that there's an element of sexual humor in the metaphor (as in all the jokes about Henry VI's empty scabbard). The fourteenth through sixteenth centuries lacked our Puritanical sensibilities (which persist in some quarters despite the prevalence of four-letters and sexual imagery virtually everywhere). At any rate, I can imagine the men of that era making a similar comparison between a female dog in heat (unlike me with all my inhibitions, they wouldn't hesitate to use the b---- word) and a tomcat. Even in our time, a person who couldn't perceive that difference would be considered mentally deficient.

Just my take on the matter, based on having read so much Shakespeare. I could be completely wrong.

Carol




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 01:03:37
barbara
A goose could mean a prostitute!



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 9:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book





Hmmm. This poses the possibility of another take: That the poor boy remained wholly innocent of, um, female company, unlike most English youths of the time. Just one more thought, thrown into the mix, eh?

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book



Carol earlier:
> >
> > I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." <snipped>
>
Katy responded:
> "Doesn't know a capon from a goose" -- as you said, what is that supposed to mean? Figures of speech are a minefield, especially across the gulf of 500 years. <snip>

Carol again:

Well, actually, I was concerned about the wording since the source will be easier to find if we quote correctly.

But with regard to the meaning, since it's been interpreted to mean that Edward of Warwick was mentally deficient (not at all unlikely given the circumstances of his confinement, whatever his natural intelligence might have been), it would seem to suggest that he can't see a type of difference that would be obvious to his contemporaries. I think that even you or I would recognize a capon (cooked or uncooked) as a chicken (though we might not know that it had been castrated). Similarly, we would know a goose (cooked or uncooked) from a chicken of any kind (though we might not know a goose from a gander unless the goose was being trailed by a gaggle of goslings).

I suspect, too, that there's an element of sexual humor in the metaphor (as in all the jokes about Henry VI's empty scabbard). The fourteenth through sixteenth centuries lacked our Puritanical sensibilities (which persist in some quarters despite the prevalence of four-letters and sexual imagery virtually everywhere). At any rate, I can imagine the men of that era making a similar comparison between a female dog in heat (unlike me with all my inhibitions, they wouldn't hesitate to use the b---- word) and a tomcat. Even in our time, a person who couldn't perceive that difference would be considered mentally deficient.

Just my take on the matter, based on having read so much Shakespeare. I could be completely wrong.

Carol







Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 01:18:38
justcarol67
"barbara" wrote:
>
> A goose could mean a prostitute!

Carol responds:

In which case, the meaning might be "can't tell a (female) prostitute from a eunuch"? Interesting! The implication might be that he was a child in terms of his life experience (probably true) but it could imply mental deficiency as well--a child in a young man's body. But, so far as I know, no one outside the Tower ever saw him between the time that Henry VII paraded him through the streets to prove that Lambert Simnel was an imposter and his execution some twelve or so years later. There's one person who would have been much better off if Richard had lived. (Of course, the same could be said for many other relatives of Richard, including John of Gloucester, Margaret Pole, and the de la Pole brothers.)

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 01:26:44
Karen Clark
That's a huge leap! 'Can't tell a goose from a capon' sounds to me more like
an older version of 'can't tell his arse from his elbow'.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 00:18:35 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








"barbara" wrote:
>
> A goose could mean a prostitute!

Carol responds:

In which case, the meaning might be "can't tell a (female) prostitute from a
eunuch"? Interesting! The implication might be that he was a child in terms
of his life experience (probably true) but it could imply mental deficiency
as well--a child in a young man's body. But, so far as I know, no one
outside the Tower ever saw him between the time that Henry VII paraded him
through the streets to prove that Lambert Simnel was an imposter and his
execution some twelve or so years later. There's one person who would have
been much better off if Richard had lived. (Of course, the same could be
said for many other relatives of Richard, including John of Gloucester,
Margaret Pole, and the de la Pole brothers.)

Carol









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 01:32:30
Karen Clark
Carol

Young Warwick is mentioned in footnotes pp211/12. (p112 is still Edward IV
and no mention of young Warwick). The long footnote doesn't discuss his
mental faculties.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:21:50 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








Karen Clark wrote:
> <snip>
> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of Clarence's
son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a
goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind
me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. <snip>

Carol responds:

I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." Kendall,
who suggests that Edward of Warwick may have been "a retarded child" but
presents the idea that the fourteen-year confinement in the Tower may have
affected his mind in a note cites his source as York Records, p. 112. That
seems like an odd source to me, but I'd appreciate it if someone with access
to that source would check it.

I'm pretty sure that poor Warwick didn't have a trial. His execution on
trumped-up charges was judicial murder, pure and simple.

Carol









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 01:53:55
justcarol67
> "barbara" wrote:
> >
> > A goose could mean a prostitute!
>
Carol responded:
>
> In which case, the meaning might be "can't tell a (female) prostitute from a eunuch"? Interesting! The implication might be that he was a child in terms of his life experience (probably true) but it could imply mental deficiency as well--a child in a young man's body. But, so far as I know, no one outside the Tower ever saw him between the time that Henry VII paraded him through the streets to prove that Lambert Simnel was an imposter and his execution some twelve or so years later. <snip>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> That's a huge leap! 'Can't tell a goose from a capon' sounds to me more like an older version of 'can't tell his arse from his elbow'.

Carol responds:

Well, yes. Note my question mark and all my "mights" and "coulds," as well as my original interpretation of "can't tell a neutered male chicken from a (female by definition) goose" as being something as obvious to the people of the time as the difference between (female) dogs and (male) cats is to us. I do still suspect a sexual connotation, but it's only a suspicion or guess not a set-in-stone interpretation. As I said, very few people saw young Warwick during the years of his confinement. They, too, might only have been guessing at his mental capacity (though the limited life experience might have been easier to deduce).

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 02:11:15
barbara
The innuendo of 'goose' for whore really was awfully common over that
period. I have not the slightest idea if capon was ever used as a crude
reference to a eunuch, however. Remembering the vast store of innuendo in
Shakespeare, "Can't tell a whore from a eunuch" sounds quite "Tudor" to me.
Could still mean he was just considered a bit daft (not the same thing as
mentally deficient) - or be a reference to having been locked up since
before puberty. Was he shackled too? (I seem to remember a reference in Anne
Wroe's book but I'm not sure). All wild assumptions of course.



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 10:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book





> "barbara" wrote:
> >
> > A goose could mean a prostitute!
>
Carol responded:
>
> In which case, the meaning might be "can't tell a (female) prostitute from
a eunuch"? Interesting! The implication might be that he was a child in
terms of his life experience (probably true) but it could imply mental
deficiency as well--a child in a young man's body. But, so far as I know, no
one outside the Tower ever saw him between the time that Henry VII paraded
him through the streets to prove that Lambert Simnel was an imposter and his
execution some twelve or so years later. <snip>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> That's a huge leap! 'Can't tell a goose from a capon' sounds to me more
like an older version of 'can't tell his arse from his elbow'.

Carol responds:

Well, yes. Note my question mark and all my "mights" and "coulds," as well
as my original interpretation of "can't tell a neutered male chicken from a
(female by definition) goose" as being something as obvious to the people of
the time as the difference between (female) dogs and (male) cats is to us. I
do still suspect a sexual connotation, but it's only a suspicion or guess
not a set-in-stone interpretation. As I said, very few people saw young
Warwick during the years of his confinement. They, too, might only have been
guessing at his mental capacity (though the limited life experience might
have been easier to deduce).

Carol





Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 03:25:03
justcarol67
Karen Clark wrote:
>

> Young Warwick is mentioned in footnotes pp211/12. (p112 is still Edward IV and no mention of young Warwick). The long footnote doesn't discuss his mental faculties.

Carol responds:

Thanks for checking, Karen. Maybe that's where Kendall got his information about young Warwick being with his cousin Lincoln at Sheriff Hutton rather than his source for the capon quote. (I thought it seemed an odd source!)

Well, I'm out of options since none of my books--Pollard, Annette's "Maligned King," Audrey Williamson's "Mystery of the Princes"--gives either the quotation or its source. I even consulted Desmond ("the Moron") Seward, who states flat out that little Edward was "mentally subnormal," but his neurotically insecure Richard nevertheless fears him as a rival. (The temptation to shred or burn this book comes over me every time I consult it. Fortunately, I'm in the mood to laugh at Seward's mindless enslavement to More.)

Has anyone else had better luck finding the source of the capon quotation?

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 03:42:35
oregon\_katy
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." <snipped>

> I suspect, too, that there's an element of sexual humor in the metaphor (as in all the jokes about Henry VI's empty scabbard).


That's an idea, come to think of it. I mean, why a capon (castrated chicken) rather than just a chicken? The expression doesn't specify what sex the goose is, for balance -- it isn't "can't tell a capon from a gander" nor is it "can't tell a goose from a hen" hens being more common than capons even back then.

Sex pops up everywhere, doesn't it? (Oops, even here.)

Katy

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 04:15:28
Karen Clark
It's from Hall, btw.

"Edward Plantagenet erle of Wanvike, of whome ye haue heard before, beyng
kept in the Towre almost from his tender age, that is to saye, fro his first
yere of the kyng to thys. xv. yere, out of al company of men & sight of
beastes, in so much that he coude not descerne a Goose from a Capon."

In its full context, it does seem more an 'experience of the world' thing
than a comment on his mental faculties.

Karen



From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 00:53:53 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






> "barbara" wrote:
> >
> > A goose could mean a prostitute!
>
Carol responded:
>
> In which case, the meaning might be "can't tell a (female) prostitute from a
eunuch"? Interesting! The implication might be that he was a child in terms of
his life experience (probably true) but it could imply mental deficiency as
well--a child in a young man's body. But, so far as I know, no one outside the
Tower ever saw him between the time that Henry VII paraded him through the
streets to prove that Lambert Simnel was an imposter and his execution some
twelve or so years later. <snip>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> That's a huge leap! 'Can't tell a goose from a capon' sounds to me more like
an older version of 'can't tell his arse from his elbow'.

Carol responds:

Well, yes. Note my question mark and all my "mights" and "coulds," as well
as my original interpretation of "can't tell a neutered male chicken from a
(female by definition) goose" as being something as obvious to the people of
the time as the difference between (female) dogs and (male) cats is to us. I
do still suspect a sexual connotation, but it's only a suspicion or guess
not a set-in-stone interpretation. As I said, very few people saw young
Warwick during the years of his confinement. They, too, might only have been
guessing at his mental capacity (though the limited life experience might
have been easier to deduce).

Carol









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 04:16:59
Karen Clark
It's from Hall, Barbara. I've only dipped into his stuff so far, but he
doesn't seem to the type for sexual innuendo.

Karen

From: barbara <barbaragd@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:10:44 +1000
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book






The innuendo of 'goose' for whore really was awfully common over that
period. I have not the slightest idea if capon was ever used as a crude
reference to a eunuch, however. Remembering the vast store of innuendo in
Shakespeare, "Can't tell a whore from a eunuch" sounds quite "Tudor" to me.
Could still mean he was just considered a bit daft (not the same thing as
mentally deficient) - or be a reference to having been locked up since
before puberty. Was he shackled too? (I seem to remember a reference in Anne
Wroe's book but I'm not sure). All wild assumptions of course.






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 04:18:03
Karen Clark
It's from Hall, Carol.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:25:02 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book







Karen Clark wrote:
>

> Young Warwick is mentioned in footnotes pp211/12. (p112 is still Edward IV
and no mention of young Warwick). The long footnote doesn't discuss his mental
faculties.

Carol responds:

Thanks for checking, Karen. Maybe that's where Kendall got his information
about young Warwick being with his cousin Lincoln at Sheriff Hutton rather
than his source for the capon quote. (I thought it seemed an odd source!)

Well, I'm out of options since none of my books--Pollard, Annette's
"Maligned King," Audrey Williamson's "Mystery of the Princes"--gives either
the quotation or its source. I even consulted Desmond ("the Moron") Seward,
who states flat out that little Edward was "mentally subnormal," but his
neurotically insecure Richard nevertheless fears him as a rival. (The
temptation to shred or burn this book comes over me every time I consult it.
Fortunately, I'm in the mood to laugh at Seward's mindless enslavement to
More.)

Has anyone else had better luck finding the source of the capon quotation?

Carol









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 04:24:50
fayre rose
because my former spouse had a dictionary of psychiatric terms, i was fairly sure that idiot might be a "modern" word. perhaps it was imbecile or another term used to indicate a lack of mental capicity. anyhow, i decided to look up the definition of idiot on wikipedia, because i was wondering if the term idiot born might have been a modern vs contemporary description of the lad.

the word idiot is of greek origin. in medieval era it did not mean, what we understand it to be.

wiki says.
Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote
("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487
and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has
cognates in many other languages.
end quote

i found the use of prophet and prophecy a tad troubling. so i referred to them again in wikipedia.

what i have concluded is that george may have been a shy person who kept to himself and was deeply spiritual, somewhat like h6. h6 had his moments as we all know. so i am left wondering about george: was he mentally incapable or just in his own world, perhaps autistic.


--- On Fri, 9/28/12, Annette Carson <email@...> wrote:

From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Friday, September 28, 2012, 1:08 PM
















 









Regarding mental incapacity, I think life must have been pretty grim for the mentally infirm. Judy mentioned stuttering and "The King's Speech", and it's true that even eighty years ago stuttering was equated with mental inadequacy.



However, regarding the possible stutter, I do think it's easy to be misled by a chance remark from an era where every tiny scrap of information is precious - e.g. "Richard liveth yet" which apparently was a phrase added just to make the metre scan. I have enormous sympathy for young Edward of Warwick, and wouldn't want his memory to be saddled with an erroneous assumption.



As for 'idiot born', perhaps the way George Neville is described may throw some light on this, as it sounds rather as if he was initially able to marry and carry out military duties, AND look after his own interests, until declared mentally infirm later in life. So in his case, perhaps not born that way ?



----- Original Message -----

From: oregon_katy

To:

Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:53 PM

Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>



> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of

> Clarence's son.



No, actually, I was closer to the mark than that,as Annette indicated. I merely had the wrong George Neville -- I knew that it was far from settled that Warwick had any mental defect.



> The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference

> to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is

> also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.



I'm not clear on what that phrase means, either. Maybe nothing other than a statement of fact -- she was mentally deficient from her earliest days. (She was capable of childbearing, though, and evidently that was what mattered.) I have some vague recollection that the term was in a legal document, though, and in that case it may have more weight and significance. My thought was "as opposed to what -- an idiot made?" Maybe such distinction would be in reference to having the mental capacity to enter into or acquiesce to some contract or binding arrangement. Marriage? Acquiring or releasing property? Clauses of a will? In that case, it could be quite important to determine if there was ever some period in which a person who was too mentally deficient to be a party to a contract was that way when the contract was made or became that way afterward, and when that sad situation started.



Katy































Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 04:40:15
oregon\_katy
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> because my former spouse had a dictionary of psychiatric terms, i was fairly sure that idiot might be a "modern" word. perhaps it was imbecile or another term used to indicate a lack of mental capicity. anyhow, i decided to look up the definition of idiot on wikipedia, because i was wondering if the term idiot born might have been a modern vs contemporary description of the lad.
>
> the word idiot is of greek origin. in medieval era it did not mean, what we understand it to be.
>
> wiki says.
> Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote
> ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487
> and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has
> cognates in many other languages.
> end quote
>
> i found the use of prophet and prophecy a tad troubling. so i referred to them again in wikipedia.
>
> what i have concluded is that george may have been a shy person who kept to himself and was deeply spiritual, somewhat like h6. h6 had his moments as we all know. so i am left wondering about george: was he mentally incapable or just in his own world, perhaps autistic.



I'd better point out that it seems that nobody but me seems to have pinned the term "idiot" onto George Neville, at least the Lord Latimer George Neville.

It belongs to Joan Fauconberg, who actually was described somewhere as "an idiot born."


Katy

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 04:46:50
barbara
Fair enough Karen - thanks. Maybe a shame. I like the idea both as
colloquial Tudoresque wit - and as regards young Warwick.



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 1:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book





It's from Hall, Barbara. I've only dipped into his stuff so far, but he
doesn't seem to the type for sexual innuendo.

Karen

From: barbara <barbaragd@... <mailto:barbaragd%40activ8.net.au> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:10:44 +1000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book

The innuendo of 'goose' for whore really was awfully common over that
period. I have not the slightest idea if capon was ever used as a crude
reference to a eunuch, however. Remembering the vast store of innuendo in
Shakespeare, "Can't tell a whore from a eunuch" sounds quite "Tudor" to me.
Could still mean he was just considered a bit daft (not the same thing as
mentally deficient) - or be a reference to having been locked up since
before puberty. Was he shackled too? (I seem to remember a reference in Anne
Wroe's book but I'm not sure). All wild assumptions of course.







Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 04:56:53
Karen Clark
It's also been suggested that Latimer suffered from some kind of dementia
that worsened as he got older. Early onset Alzheimers, or something similar.

From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book






because my former spouse had a dictionary of psychiatric terms, i was fairly
sure that idiot might be a "modern" word. perhaps it was imbecile or another
term used to indicate a lack of mental capicity. anyhow, i decided to look
up the definition of idiot on wikipedia, because i was wondering if the term
idiot born might have been a modern vs contemporary description of the lad.

the word idiot is of greek origin. in medieval era it did not mean, what we
understand it to be.

wiki says.
Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year
1300, from the Old French idiote
("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487
and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and
prophecy.[4][5] The word has
cognates in many other languages.
end quote

i found the use of prophet and prophecy a tad troubling. so i referred to
them again in wikipedia.

what i have concluded is that george may have been a shy person who kept to
himself and was deeply spiritual, somewhat like h6. h6 had his moments as we
all know. so i am left wondering about george: was he mentally incapable or
just in his own world, perhaps autistic.

--- On Fri, 9/28/12, Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> > wrote:

From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Friday, September 28, 2012, 1:08 PM



Regarding mental incapacity, I think life must have been pretty grim for the
mentally infirm. Judy mentioned stuttering and "The King's Speech", and it's
true that even eighty years ago stuttering was equated with mental
inadequacy.

However, regarding the possible stutter, I do think it's easy to be misled
by a chance remark from an era where every tiny scrap of information is
precious - e.g. "Richard liveth yet" which apparently was a phrase added
just to make the metre scan. I have enormous sympathy for young Edward of
Warwick, and wouldn't want his memory to be saddled with an erroneous
assumption.

As for 'idiot born', perhaps the way George Neville is described may throw
some light on this, as it sounds rather as if he was initially able to marry
and carry out military duties, AND look after his own interests, until
declared mentally infirm later in life. So in his case, perhaps not born
that way ?

----- Original Message -----

From: oregon_katy

To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:53 PM

Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>

> Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of

> Clarence's son.

No, actually, I was closer to the mark than that,as Annette indicated. I
merely had the wrong George Neville -- I knew that it was far from settled
that Warwick had any mental defect.

> The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference

> to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is

> also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.

I'm not clear on what that phrase means, either. Maybe nothing other than a
statement of fact -- she was mentally deficient from her earliest days. (She
was capable of childbearing, though, and evidently that was what mattered.)
I have some vague recollection that the term was in a legal document,
though, and in that case it may have more weight and significance. My
thought was "as opposed to what -- an idiot made?" Maybe such distinction
would be in reference to having the mental capacity to enter into or
acquiesce to some contract or binding arrangement. Marriage? Acquiring or
releasing property? Clauses of a will? In that case, it could be quite
important to determine if there was ever some period in which a person who
was too mentally deficient to be a party to a contract was that way when the
contract was made or became that way afterward, and when that sad situation
started.

Katy













Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 05:11:25
fayre rose
well..face palm..now i feel like an idiot. oh well, at least we now know that an idiot in 15thC is not the same as an idiot in 21stC.

--- On Fri, 9/28/12, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To:
Received: Friday, September 28, 2012, 11:40 PM
















 













--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:

>

> because my former spouse had a dictionary of psychiatric terms, i was fairly sure that idiot might be a "modern" word. perhaps it was imbecile or another term used to indicate a lack of mental capicity. anyhow, i decided to look up the definition of idiot on wikipedia, because i was wondering if the term idiot born might have been a modern vs contemporary description of the lad.

>

> the word idiot is of greek origin. in medieval era it did not mean, what we understand it to be.

>

> wiki says.

> Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote

> ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487

> and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has

> cognates in many other languages.

> end quote

>

> i found the use of prophet and prophecy a tad troubling. so i referred to them again in wikipedia.

>

> what i have concluded is that george may have been a shy person who kept to himself and was deeply spiritual, somewhat like h6. h6 had his moments as we all know. so i am left wondering about george: was he mentally incapable or just in his own world, perhaps autistic.



I'd better point out that it seems that nobody but me seems to have pinned the term "idiot" onto George Neville, at least the Lord Latimer George Neville.



It belongs to Joan Fauconberg, who actually was described somewhere as "an idiot born."



Katy



























Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 10:24:15
Johanne Tournier
Hi, All -

This may not be helpful but I seem to recall this comment being made about
someone else, like maybe Louis XVI. Is it possible that this was a saying
that was in (fairly) common usage?



Inquiring minds want to know! J



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~







From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book






Karen Clark wrote:
>

> Young Warwick is mentioned in footnotes pp211/12. (p112 is still Edward IV
and no mention of young Warwick). The long footnote doesn't discuss his
mental faculties.

Carol responds:

Thanks for checking, Karen. Maybe that's where Kendall got his information
about young Warwick being with his cousin Lincoln at Sheriff Hutton rather
than his source for the capon quote. (I thought it seemed an odd source!)

Well, I'm out of options since none of my books--Pollard, Annette's
"Maligned King," Audrey Williamson's "Mystery of the Princes"--gives either
the quotation or its source. I even consulted Desmond ("the Moron") Seward,
who states flat out that little Edward was "mentally subnormal," but his
neurotically insecure Richard nevertheless fears him as a rival. (The
temptation to shred or burn this book comes over me every time I consult it.
Fortunately, I'm in the mood to laugh at Seward's mindless enslavement to
More.)

Has anyone else had better luck finding the source of the capon quotation?

Carol





Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 13:46:47
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Yes, I have a sister, and I can just hear her now saying the same thing about me.

--- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think I read somewhere that his sister used that term.
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > > Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> > > Clarence's son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
> > > social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a
> > > goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind
> > > me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. I'm fairly sure it was at
> > > during his trial. Possibly the Milanese ambassador? They jotted down a lot
> > > of interesting snippets.) There's no concrete evidence regarding his mental
> > > faculties, so impossible to say, really.
> >
> > No, it was after his death, from one of the Tudor "histyorians". Was it Vergil, anybody?
> >
> > >
> > > Edward couldn't have held his father's lands in the first place, as his
> > > father was attainted. His title (earl of Warwick) he had from his mother.
> > > I'm assuming he didn't hold his mother's lands, either, which there'd have
> > > been no legal justification for.
> >
> > You're asssuming wrong. He did inherit his mother's lands. Of course, he didn't actually hold them, being a minor. His wardship went from King Edward to Dorset, and then in 1483 he was placed in Anne Neville's household. Then in 1487 Henry VII allowwed parliament to grant the Countess' petition to repeal the 1474 Act of Parliament that had made her legally dead, and the lands thus became her property again. Immediately and oddly - particularly since in her petition she had requested that the lands be secure against the King - she gave them all up to King Henry, who granted her back just a few manors. Warwick was in the Tower by this time, of course, so he had the Countess over a barrel.
> > I don't think there is any chance that Warwick was an idiot born. Umpteen extant documents refer to his lands as being in the King's custody during his minority. Had he been an idiot the custody of them would have been settled on a third party (the King, perhaps?) for life, a sort of power of attorney with extra benefits arrangement.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> > > to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> > > also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.
> > >
> > > My understanding was that George Nevill (Montagu's son) was stripped of his
> > > title because he couldn't maintain it, and he couldn't maintain it because
> > > someone else had the income from his lands, many of which would have come
> > > from his mother, who had definitely not been attainted or troubled much at
> > > all after Barnet. Her second husband, William Norreys, was closely connected
> > > to Edward IV, and the king himself might have brought the marriage about.
> > > (That's very much in the conjectural stage at the moment.)
> > >
> > > Karen
> >
> > I'd like to look more into what happened to his mother's lands too. I know the daughters eventually managed to get them parcelled out between them. I doubt the income from them would have been sufficient to support an earldom, though. There was a particular level of income you needed in order to be an earl - anybody know what it was?
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:30:16 -0000
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > > Book
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner
> > > <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and
> > > from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of
> > > George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
> > > >
> > > > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped
> > > of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates
> > > as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died
> > > in May
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" --
> > > mentally and physically handicapped from birth?
> > >
> > > Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 13:50:16
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Some are born idiots, some are made idiots, and some have idiocy thrust upon... you know, that joke is too stupid even for me to continue. Never mind!

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
>
>
> > Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> > Clarence's son.
>
> No, actually, I was closer to the mark than that,as Annette indicated. I merely had the wrong George Neville -- I knew that it was far from settled that Warwick had any mental defect.
>
>
> > The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> > to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> > also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.
>
>
> I'm not clear on what that phrase means, either. Maybe nothing other than a statement of fact -- she was mentally deficient from her earliest days. (She was capable of childbearing, though, and evidently that was what mattered.) I have some vague recollection that the term was in a legal document, though, and in that case it may have more weight and significance. My thought was "as opposed to what -- an idiot made?" Maybe such distinction would be in reference to having the mental capacity to enter into or acquiesce to some contract or binding arrangement. Marriage? Acquiring or releasing property? Clauses of a will? In that case, it could be quite important to determine if there was ever some period in which a person who was too mentally deficient to be a party to a contract was that way when the contract was made or became that way afterward, and when that sad situation started.
>
> Katy
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 14:00:23
mcjohn\_wt\_net
It might even have been an extremely subtle way of saying, "The kid's gay"--he can't tell the difference between a [female] goose and a [male, despite surgery] capon. Decades ago, I read a comment on a thundering great Victorian scandal in which two well-known same-sex partners left their spouses to run off to the Continent together: apparently, one of the newspapers referred to it, with Victorian delicacy, as "a grammatical error with regard to the genders."

--- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> A goose could mean a prostitute!
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 9:58 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>
>
>
> Hmmm. This poses the possibility of another take: That the poor boy remained wholly innocent of, um, female company, unlike most English youths of the time. Just one more thought, thrown into the mix, eh?
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 6:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>
> Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." <snipped>
> >
> Katy responded:
> > "Doesn't know a capon from a goose" -- as you said, what is that supposed to mean? Figures of speech are a minefield, especially across the gulf of 500 years. <snip>
>
> Carol again:
>
> Well, actually, I was concerned about the wording since the source will be easier to find if we quote correctly.
>
> But with regard to the meaning, since it's been interpreted to mean that Edward of Warwick was mentally deficient (not at all unlikely given the circumstances of his confinement, whatever his natural intelligence might have been), it would seem to suggest that he can't see a type of difference that would be obvious to his contemporaries. I think that even you or I would recognize a capon (cooked or uncooked) as a chicken (though we might not know that it had been castrated). Similarly, we would know a goose (cooked or uncooked) from a chicken of any kind (though we might not know a goose from a gander unless the goose was being trailed by a gaggle of goslings).
>
> I suspect, too, that there's an element of sexual humor in the metaphor (as in all the jokes about Henry VI's empty scabbard). The fourteenth through sixteenth centuries lacked our Puritanical sensibilities (which persist in some quarters despite the prevalence of four-letters and sexual imagery virtually everywhere). At any rate, I can imagine the men of that era making a similar comparison between a female dog in heat (unlike me with all my inhibitions, they wouldn't hesitate to use the b---- word) and a tomcat. Even in our time, a person who couldn't perceive that difference would be considered mentally deficient.
>
> Just my take on the matter, based on having read so much Shakespeare. I could be completely wrong.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 14:13:21
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Nah, no need. When you're the one blazing the path, you're gonna be the one tripping over the rocks. Those bruises just mean you're exercising your intellectual curiosity, which merely means you're more active than, say, someone sitting at home with a six-pack and Chee-tos, avidly absorbed in the latest tantrum on "Survivor".

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> well..face palm..now i feel like an idiot. oh well, at least we now know that an idiot in 15thC is not the same as an idiot in 21stC.
>
> --- On Fri, 9/28/12, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To:
> Received: Friday, September 28, 2012, 11:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > because my former spouse had a dictionary of psychiatric terms, i was fairly sure that idiot might be a "modern" word. perhaps it was imbecile or another term used to indicate a lack of mental capicity. anyhow, i decided to look up the definition of idiot on wikipedia, because i was wondering if the term idiot born might have been a modern vs contemporary description of the lad.
>
> >
>
> > the word idiot is of greek origin. in medieval era it did not mean, what we understand it to be.
>
> >
>
> > wiki says.
>
> > Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote
>
> > ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487
>
> > and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has
>
> > cognates in many other languages.
>
> > end quote
>
> >
>
> > i found the use of prophet and prophecy a tad troubling. so i referred to them again in wikipedia.
>
> >
>
> > what i have concluded is that george may have been a shy person who kept to himself and was deeply spiritual, somewhat like h6. h6 had his moments as we all know. so i am left wondering about george: was he mentally incapable or just in his own world, perhaps autistic.
>
>
>
> I'd better point out that it seems that nobody but me seems to have pinned the term "idiot" onto George Neville, at least the Lord Latimer George Neville.
>
>
>
> It belongs to Joan Fauconberg, who actually was described somewhere as "an idiot born."
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 14:25:10
Judy Thomson
Another thought that ran through my mind as well, McJohn ;-)

Of course, in those days, that orientation would have been an abomination. The fast track to Hell.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
It might even have been an extremely subtle way of saying, "The kid's gay"--he can't tell the difference between a [female] goose and a [male, despite surgery] capon. Decades ago, I read a comment on a thundering great Victorian scandal in which two well-known same-sex partners left their spouses to run off to the Continent together: apparently, one of the newspapers referred to it, with Victorian delicacy, as "a grammatical error with regard to the genders."

--- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> A goose could mean a prostitute!
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 9:58 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>
>
>
> Hmmm. This poses the possibility of another take: That the poor boy remained wholly innocent of, um, female company, unlike most English youths of the time. Just one more thought, thrown into the mix, eh?
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 6:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>
> Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." <snipped>
> >
> Katy responded:
> > "Doesn't know a capon from a goose" -- as you said, what is that supposed to mean? Figures of speech are a minefield, especially across the gulf of 500 years. <snip>
>
> Carol again:
>
> Well, actually, I was concerned about the wording since the source will be easier to find if we quote correctly.
>
> But with regard to the meaning, since it's been interpreted to mean that Edward of Warwick was mentally deficient (not at all unlikely given the circumstances of his confinement, whatever his natural intelligence might have been), it would seem to suggest that he can't see a type of difference that would be obvious to his contemporaries. I think that even you or I would recognize a capon (cooked or uncooked) as a chicken (though we might not know that it had been castrated). Similarly, we would know a goose (cooked or uncooked) from a chicken of any kind (though we might not know a goose from a gander unless the goose was being trailed by a gaggle of goslings).
>
> I suspect, too, that there's an element of sexual humor in the metaphor (as in all the jokes about Henry VI's empty scabbard). The fourteenth through sixteenth centuries lacked our Puritanical sensibilities (which persist in some quarters despite the prevalence of four-letters and sexual imagery virtually everywhere). At any rate, I can imagine the men of that era making a similar comparison between a female dog in heat (unlike me with all my inhibitions, they wouldn't hesitate to use the b---- word) and a tomcat. Even in our time, a person who couldn't perceive that difference would be considered mentally deficient.
>
> Just my take on the matter, based on having read so much Shakespeare. I could be completely wrong.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 14:30:24
Judy Thomson
Just as an aside, McJohn, you've a wondrous quick wit. I admire your style. A tip of the old chapeau to you.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
Nah, no need. When you're the one blazing the path, you're gonna be the one tripping over the rocks. Those bruises just mean you're exercising your intellectual curiosity, which merely means you're more active than, say, someone sitting at home with a six-pack and Chee-tos, avidly absorbed in the latest tantrum on "Survivor".

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> well..face palm..now i feel like an idiot. oh well, at least we now know that an idiot in 15thC is not the same as an idiot in 21stC.
>
> --- On Fri, 9/28/12, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To:
> Received: Friday, September 28, 2012, 11:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > because my former spouse had a dictionary of psychiatric terms, i was fairly sure that idiot might be a "modern" word. perhaps it was imbecile or another term used to indicate a lack of mental capicity. anyhow, i decided to look up the definition of idiot on wikipedia, because i was wondering if the term idiot born might have been a modern vs contemporary description of the lad.
>
> >
>
> > the word idiot is of greek origin. in medieval era it did not mean, what we understand it to be.
>
> >
>
> > wiki says.
>
> > Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote
>
> > ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487
>
> > and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has
>
> > cognates in many other languages.
>
> > end quote
>
> >
>
> > i found the use of prophet and prophecy a tad troubling. so i referred to them again in wikipedia.
>
> >
>
> > what i have concluded is that george may have been a shy person who kept to himself and was deeply spiritual, somewhat like h6. h6 had his moments as we all know. so i am left wondering about george: was he mentally incapable or just in his own world, perhaps autistic.
>
>
>
> I'd better point out that it seems that nobody but me seems to have pinned the term "idiot" onto George Neville, at least the Lord Latimer George Neville.
>
>
>
> It belongs to Joan Fauconberg, who actually was described somewhere as "an idiot born."
>
>
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 15:07:39
fayre rose
amongst the elite male homosexuality wasn't as "frowned" upon. it was known as the aristrocratic vice. there is strong evidence that king james I was homosexual.

i can't remember which of the then courtier's coined the phrase, the "king who is a queen", and then referring to elizabeth I as the "queen who was king."

and today..the talibangelists are rabidly homophobic, and still believe homosexuality is the fast track to hell. in our modern western civilization people are still being murdered for who they are.

the usa just recently accepted that it was okay for homosexuals to fight and die for their country. canada has been legally less homophobic since the 1970's.





--- On Sat, 9/29/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
To: "" <>
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 9:25 AM
















 









Another thought that ran through my mind as well, McJohn ;-)



Of course, in those days, that orientation would have been an abomination. The fast track to Hell.



Judy

 

Loyaulte me lie



________________________________

From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>

To:

Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:00 AM

Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book





 

It might even have been an extremely subtle way of saying, "The kid's gay"--he can't tell the difference between a [female] goose and a [male, despite surgery] capon. Decades ago, I read a comment on a thundering great Victorian scandal in which two well-known same-sex partners left their spouses to run off to the Continent together: apparently, one of the newspapers referred to it, with Victorian delicacy, as "a grammatical error with regard to the genders."



--- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@...> wrote:

>

> A goose could mean a prostitute!

>

>

>

> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson

> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 9:58 AM

> To:

> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

>

>

>

>

>

> Hmmm. This poses the possibility of another take: That the poor boy remained wholly innocent of, um, female company, unlike most English youths of the time. Just one more thought, thrown into the mix, eh?

>

> Judy

>

> Loyaulte me lie

>

> ________________________________

> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >

> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 6:39 PM

> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

>

>

>

> Carol earlier:

> > >

> > > I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." <snipped>

> >

> Katy responded:

> > "Doesn't know a capon from a goose" -- as you said, what is that supposed to mean? Figures of speech are a minefield, especially across the gulf of 500 years. <snip>

>

> Carol again:

>

> Well, actually, I was concerned about the wording since the source will be easier to find if we quote correctly.

>

> But with regard to the meaning, since it's been interpreted to mean that Edward of Warwick was mentally deficient (not at all unlikely given the circumstances of his confinement, whatever his natural intelligence might have been), it would seem to suggest that he can't see a type of difference that would be obvious to his contemporaries. I think that even you or I would recognize a capon (cooked or uncooked) as a chicken (though we might not know that it had been castrated). Similarly, we would know a goose (cooked or uncooked) from a chicken of any kind (though we might not know a goose from a gander unless the goose was being trailed by a gaggle of goslings).

>

> I suspect, too, that there's an element of sexual humor in the metaphor (as in all the jokes about Henry VI's empty scabbard). The fourteenth through sixteenth centuries lacked our Puritanical sensibilities (which persist in some quarters despite the prevalence of four-letters and sexual imagery virtually everywhere). At any rate, I can imagine the men of that era making a similar comparison between a female dog in heat (unlike me with all my inhibitions, they wouldn't hesitate to use the b---- word) and a tomcat. Even in our time, a person who couldn't perceive that difference would be considered mentally deficient.

>

> Just my take on the matter, based on having read so much Shakespeare. I could be completely wrong.

>

> Carol

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>































Re: Homophobia 'Mongst the Aristos

2012-09-29 16:29:41
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Yeah, that comment was apparently originally in Latin, only one word of which I can now recall: "nunc". Wait, I can do better than that...

Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus.
"We've had King Elizabeth, and now we've got Queen James."

Yeah, there we go. That's here:

http://rictornorton.co.uk/jamesi.htm

There's a terrific quote from Gerard Manley Hopkins, celibate clergyman and celebrated poet 'round World War I: "It is the vice of distinctiveness to become q---r. This vice I cannot have escaped." (Dashes not in original, added mainly because I don't know whether Hopkins meant it as a compliment, as I would have, or a despairing insult.)

Reactions to perceived or actual gaydom seem to have been the same sort of thing as is common now: some people would invite you to parties, and some would attempt to beat you to death. (That's an old "Sylvia" joke from Nicole Hollander, by the way.)

It is quite true that it took the U.S. eons to allow lesbians and gay men to be open about who they are and still serve in the U.S. military, and is taking many more eons to recognize the right to gay marriage. It is also true that many other societies, not so invested in the myth of the red-blooded true-blue American hero John Wayne, look upon the U.S. with scorn for being such retrogs about issues of civil rights, a scorn with which I agree, mixed as it is with profound sadness that we still have so far to go. Of all places... I guess we didn't learn our lesson hard enough from the whole slavery/genocide thing in our history, but just as I believe that the Germans should be at the forefront of combating anti-Semitism, so I believe that we in the U.S. should vigorously oppose both racism and oppression of native communities... but I digress, as so distressingly often is my wont.

As Karen pointed out, though, it's clear, from the context of the "goose/capon" remark, that the implication was that the poor kid had been kept so closely, and in such profound ignorance, that whatever knowledge he once possessed had leaked out of his ears. If only Henry hadn't been such a paranoiac little weasel... but then again, that's the whole impetus behind his kingship, isn't it?

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> amongst the elite male homosexuality wasn't as "frowned" upon. it was known as the aristrocratic vice. there is strong evidence that king james I was homosexual.
>
> i can't remember which of the then courtier's coined the phrase, the "king who is a queen", and then referring to elizabeth I as the "queen who was king."
>
> and today..the talibangelists are rabidly homophobic, and still believe homosexuality is the fast track to hell. in our modern western civilization people are still being murdered for who they are.
>
> the usa just recently accepted that it was okay for homosexuals to fight and die for their country. canada has been legally less homophobic since the 1970's.
>
> --- On Sat, 9/29/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To: "" <>
> Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 9:25 AM

> Another thought that ran through my mind as well, McJohn ;-)

> Of course, in those days, that orientation would have been an abomination. The fast track to Hell.
>
> Judy
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
> ________________________________
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>
> To:
>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:00 AM
>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
> It might even have been an extremely subtle way of saying, "The kid's gay"--he can't tell the difference between a [female] goose and a [male, despite surgery] capon. Decades ago, I read a comment on a thundering great Victorian scandal in which two well-known same-sex partners left their spouses to run off to the Continent together: apparently, one of the newspapers referred to it, with Victorian delicacy, as "a grammatical error with regard to the genders."

> --- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@> wrote:
>
>
> > A goose could mean a prostitute!
>
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
>
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 9:58 AM
>
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
> > Hmmm. This poses the possibility of another take: That the poor boy remained wholly innocent of, um, female company, unlike most English youths of the time. Just one more thought, thrown into the mix, eh?
>
>
> > Judy
> > Loyaulte me lie

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 17:55:45
EileenB
My first impression when I read young Warwick could not discern a goose from a capon was simply that he was simply backward...for lack of a better word...I dont think there is any sexual connotation there at all.....
When you read about feasts etc., there are capons as opposed to chickens on the menu..so I just think that it was a way of saying someone was either simple or stupid that they could not tell the difference between two different types of bird...not which sex the birdies were.

Poor Edward....one of the saddest stories to come out from that time. It speaks volumes of the difference beween the Weasel Tudor and Richard in the way they treated this young person who was just a child when he was first locked away...After all Edward could have been as much a threat to Richard in the long run as he was to Weasel.

Cecily Neville must have been worried and distressed about her young grandson...
Eileen

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> It might even have been an extremely subtle way of saying, "The kid's gay"--he can't tell the difference between a [female] goose and a [male, despite surgery] capon. Decades ago, I read a comment on a thundering great Victorian scandal in which two well-known same-sex partners left their spouses to run off to the Continent together: apparently, one of the newspapers referred to it, with Victorian delicacy, as "a grammatical error with regard to the genders."
>
> --- In , "barbara" <barbaragd@> wrote:
> >
> > A goose could mean a prostitute!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 9:58 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmmm. This poses the possibility of another take: That the poor boy remained wholly innocent of, um, female company, unlike most English youths of the time. Just one more thought, thrown into the mix, eh?
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@ <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 6:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > I think the exact quote was "unable to tell a goose from a capon." <snipped>
> > >
> > Katy responded:
> > > "Doesn't know a capon from a goose" -- as you said, what is that supposed to mean? Figures of speech are a minefield, especially across the gulf of 500 years. <snip>
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Well, actually, I was concerned about the wording since the source will be easier to find if we quote correctly.
> >
> > But with regard to the meaning, since it's been interpreted to mean that Edward of Warwick was mentally deficient (not at all unlikely given the circumstances of his confinement, whatever his natural intelligence might have been), it would seem to suggest that he can't see a type of difference that would be obvious to his contemporaries. I think that even you or I would recognize a capon (cooked or uncooked) as a chicken (though we might not know that it had been castrated). Similarly, we would know a goose (cooked or uncooked) from a chicken of any kind (though we might not know a goose from a gander unless the goose was being trailed by a gaggle of goslings).
> >
> > I suspect, too, that there's an element of sexual humor in the metaphor (as in all the jokes about Henry VI's empty scabbard). The fourteenth through sixteenth centuries lacked our Puritanical sensibilities (which persist in some quarters despite the prevalence of four-letters and sexual imagery virtually everywhere). At any rate, I can imagine the men of that era making a similar comparison between a female dog in heat (unlike me with all my inhibitions, they wouldn't hesitate to use the b---- word) and a tomcat. Even in our time, a person who couldn't perceive that difference would be considered mentally deficient.
> >
> > Just my take on the matter, based on having read so much Shakespeare. I could be completely wrong.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 19:48:21
justcarol67
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> It's from Hall, btw.
>
> "Edward Plantagenet erle of Wanvike, of whome ye haue heard before, beyng kept in the Towre almost from his tender age, that is to saye, fro his first yere of the kyng to thys. xv. yere, out of al company of men & sight of beastes, in so much that he coude not descerne a Goose from a Capon."
>
> In its full context, it does seem more an 'experience of the world' thing than a comment on his mental faculties.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Karen. But Hall must have had a source, either a Tudor historian or Tudor gossip. Hall published his Chronicles in about 1542 and incorporated both More and Vergil, occasionally embellishing them (as with the couplet
"Jack of Norfolk be not too bold
For Dicken thy master is bought and sold"
for which I'd love to know the source if it's not the figment of Hall's imagination.

At any rate, he would have been about a year old when young Warwick was executed in November 1499 and obviously was not speaking from first-hand knowledge.

Carol

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 21:14:15
david rayner
It seems that George Neville, Lord Latimer suffered from Dementia in later life, and was thus described as an idiot at this time.

My understanding of the term as used is definitely in reference to mental incapacity, rather than foolish actions.


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 28 September 2012, 7:30
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 


--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May

[snip]

Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" -- mentally and physically handicapped from birth?

Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?

Katy




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 21:23:54
liz williams
And BEING an older sister, I have said something similar many times about my brother, although there is nothing wrong with his mental faculties. 



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 13:46
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 
Yes, I have a sister, and I can just hear her now saying the same thing about me.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "marionziemke" <marionziemke@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think I read somewhere that his sister used that term.
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > > Sounds like you're thinking of Edward, earl of Warwick, the duke of
> > > Clarence's son. He was shut away most of his life and may have had some
> > > social awkwardness. The quote that's usually used here is 'he doesn't know a
> > > goose from a capon'. (I'm sure someone will provide the context and remind
> > > me who said that, it escapes me at the moment. I'm fairly sure it was at
> > > during his trial. Possibly the Milanese ambassador? They jotted down a lot
> > > of interesting snippets.) There's no concrete evidence regarding his mental
> > > faculties, so impossible to say, really.
> >
> > No, it was after his death, from one of the Tudor "histyorians". Was it Vergil, anybody?
> >
> > >
> > > Edward couldn't have held his father's lands in the first place, as his
> > > father was attainted. His title (earl of Warwick) he had from his mother.
> > > I'm assuming he didn't hold his mother's lands, either, which there'd have
> > > been no legal justification for.
> >
> > You're asssuming wrong. He did inherit his mother's lands. Of course, he didn't actually hold them, being a minor. His wardship went from King Edward to Dorset, and then in 1483 he was placed in Anne Neville's household. Then in 1487 Henry VII allowwed parliament to grant the Countess' petition to repeal the 1474 Act of Parliament that had made her legally dead, and the lands thus became her property again. Immediately and oddly - particularly since in her petition she had requested that the lands be secure against the King - she gave them all up to King Henry, who granted her back just a few manors. Warwick was in the Tower by this time, of course, so he had the Countess over a barrel.
> > I don't think there is any chance that Warwick was an idiot born. Umpteen extant documents refer to his lands as being in the King's custody during his minority. Had he been an idiot the custody of them would have been settled on a third party (the King, perhaps?) for life, a sort of power of attorney with extra benefits arrangement.
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > The 'idiot born' quote (or 'idiot from birth') I've seen only with reference
> > > to Lady Fauconberg, (William Nevill's wife). What it meant, in her case, is
> > > also impossible to work out. I've tried very hard on that one.
> > >
> > > My understanding was that George Nevill (Montagu's son) was stripped of his
> > > title because he couldn't maintain it, and he couldn't maintain it because
> > > someone else had the income from his lands, many of which would have come
> > > from his mother, who had definitely not been attainted or troubled much at
> > > all after Barnet. Her second husband, William Norreys, was closely connected
> > > to Edward IV, and the king himself might have brought the marriage about.
> > > (That's very much in the conjectural stage at the moment.)
> > >
> > > Karen
> >
> > I'd like to look more into what happened to his mother's lands too. I know the daughters eventually managed to get them parcelled out between them. I doubt the income from them would have been sufficient to support an earldom, though. There was a particular level of income you needed in order to be an earl - anybody know what it was?
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@>
> > > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:30:16 -0000
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > > Book
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner
> > > <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and
> > > from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of
> > > George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
> > > >
> > > > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped
> > > of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates
> > > as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died
> > > in May
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" --
> > > mentally and physically handicapped from birth?
> > >
> > > Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>




Idiots WASRe: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 21:35:02
oregon\_katy
--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> It might even have been an extremely subtle way of saying, "The kid's gay"


And that brings up another problem with interpreting what people meant when they said something centuries ago -- words shift meaning and sometimes change meaning altogether.

A little over a century ago, "gay" meant light-hearted and carefree (in fact, I can remember it having that meaning and no other) and the word for what we now mean by gay was "earnest." The title of Wilde's play The Importance of Being Earnest was a triple pun but now we usually see it as a mere double pun.

I don't think "gentle Brackenury" was described that way because he was mild and tractable. The adjective probably meant something else -- I would guess that it had something to do with the quality of being a gentleman, i.e. he was more sophisticated and polished than other men of his background and status, so you could send him on delicate missions and into elite company and be sure that he wouldn't commit a faux pas such as picking his teeth with his dagger or belching during Mass.

Katy

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 21:49:59
david rayner
From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).

Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.

Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.

The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.

The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)

Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.

Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 

To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 


--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.

Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-

25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)

29 June 1471  Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).

Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.

At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.

April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.

23 February 1475  An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
"The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."

Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.

>
> Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.

Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.

Marie

Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
>
> Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
>
> Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
>
> I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
>
> while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
>  
> in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
>  
> the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
>  
> as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
>  
> anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
>
>  
>
> Marie
>
> Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> point.
>
> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
>
> In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> was one of the people who most gained from it.
>
> There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> inheritance.
>
> I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
>
> Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> Attainting her and conf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Idiots WAS Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-29 22:42:08
mcjohn\_wt\_net
BELCHING during MASS? Where's the executioner? Never mind, hand me yon pike, I'll take care of this!

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > It might even have been an extremely subtle way of saying, "The kid's gay"
>
>
> And that brings up another problem with interpreting what people meant when they said something centuries ago -- words shift meaning and sometimes change meaning altogether.
>
> A little over a century ago, "gay" meant light-hearted and carefree (in fact, I can remember it having that meaning and no other) and the word for what we now mean by gay was "earnest." The title of Wilde's play The Importance of Being Earnest was a triple pun but now we usually see it as a mere double pun.
>
> I don't think "gentle Brackenury" was described that way because he was mild and tractable. The adjective probably meant something else -- I would guess that it had something to do with the quality of being a gentleman, i.e. he was more sophisticated and polished than other men of his background and status, so you could send him on delicate missions and into elite company and be sure that he wouldn't commit a faux pas such as picking his teeth with his dagger or belching during Mass.
>
> Katy
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-30 02:12:56
Karen Clark
Yes, Hall was writing long after the fact and must have had sources, not
necessarily just Tudor historians or gossip. He doesn't get it right all the
time, and I wouldn't rely on him without some backup closer to events. This
is one quote that can be taken absolutely at face value (whether Hall was
correct in his assessment is a different story). Young Warwick was kept out
of society for so long that there were things he just didn't know. Nothing
about his sexuality at all.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 18:48:18 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book








Karen Clark wrote:
>
> It's from Hall, btw.
>
> "Edward Plantagenet erle of Wanvike, of whome ye haue heard before, beyng kept
in the Towre almost from his tender age, that is to saye, fro his first yere of
the kyng to thys. xv. yere, out of al company of men & sight of beastes, in so
much that he coude not descerne a Goose from a Capon."
>
> In its full context, it does seem more an 'experience of the world' thing than
a comment on his mental faculties.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Karen. But Hall must have had a source, either a Tudor historian or
Tudor gossip. Hall published his Chronicles in about 1542 and incorporated
both More and Vergil, occasionally embellishing them (as with the couplet
"Jack of Norfolk be not too bold
For Dicken thy master is bought and sold"
for which I'd love to know the source if it's not the figment of Hall's
imagination.

At any rate, he would have been about a year old when young Warwick was
executed in November 1499 and obviously was not speaking from first-hand
knowledge.

Carol









Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-30 02:13:23
Karen Clark
That's my reading of it as well.

Karen

From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 21:14:11 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and
Richard's Book






It seems that George Neville, Lord Latimer suffered from Dementia in later
life, and was thus described as an idiot at this time.

My understanding of the term as used is definitely in reference to mental
incapacity, rather than foolish actions.

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 September 2012, 7:30
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book




--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and
from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of
George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).Â
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped
of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates
as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died
in May

[snip]

Wasn't it an additional factor that George Neville was "an idiot born" --
mentally and physically handicapped from birth?

Or am I thinking of another George Neville, of which there were several?

Katy











Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-30 02:16:45
Judy Thomson
Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?

Judy
Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).

Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.

Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.

The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.

The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)

Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.

Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 

To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.

Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-

25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)

29 June 1471  Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).

Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.

At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.

April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.

23 February 1475  An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
"The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."

Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.

>
> Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.

Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.

Marie

Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
>
> Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
>
> Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
>
> I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
>
> while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
>  
> in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
>  
> the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
>  
> as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
>  
> anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
>
>  
>
> Marie
>
> Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> point.
>
> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
>
> In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> was one of the people who most gained from it.
>
> There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> inheritance.
>
> I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
>
> Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> Attainting her and conf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-30 02:26:47
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Yes, it's quite clear from the entire quote so helpfully provided that what was meant was that Warwick spent so long in close confinement that he probably would only have been able to remember his own name by looking at his driver's license.

It kicked off some fine discussin' of language, social mores, and change acceptance, though!

This is SUCH a great board, you guys.

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, Hall was writing long after the fact and must have had sources, not
> necessarily just Tudor historians or gossip. He doesn't get it right all the
> time, and I wouldn't rely on him without some backup closer to events. This
> is one quote that can be taken absolutely at face value (whether Hall was
> correct in his assessment is a different story). Young Warwick was kept out
> of society for so long that there were things he just didn't know. Nothing
> about his sexuality at all.
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 18:48:18 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > It's from Hall, btw.
> >
> > "Edward Plantagenet erle of Wanvike, of whome ye haue heard before, beyng kept
> in the Towre almost from his tender age, that is to saye, fro his first yere of
> the kyng to thys. xv. yere, out of al company of men & sight of beastes, in so
> much that he coude not descerne a Goose from a Capon."
> >
> > In its full context, it does seem more an 'experience of the world' thing than
> a comment on his mental faculties.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Karen. But Hall must have had a source, either a Tudor historian or
> Tudor gossip. Hall published his Chronicles in about 1542 and incorporated
> both More and Vergil, occasionally embellishing them (as with the couplet
> "Jack of Norfolk be not too bold
> For Dicken thy master is bought and sold"
> for which I'd love to know the source if it's not the figment of Hall's
> imagination.
>
> At any rate, he would have been about a year old when young Warwick was
> executed in November 1499 and obviously was not speaking from first-hand
> knowledge.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-30 02:29:00
mcjohn\_wt\_net
Yes, I was going to say, "Oh, David, you've visited? You should have called, we could have gone out for drinks!"

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?
>
> Judy
> Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).
>
> Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.
>
> Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.
>
> The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.
>
> The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)
>
> Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.
>
> Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 
>
> To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
> >
> > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
>
> Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-
>
> 25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)
>
> 29 June 1471 â€" Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).
>
> Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.
>
> At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.
>
> April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.
>
> 23 February 1475 â€" An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
> "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
> Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
> minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."
>
> Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.
>
> >
> > Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.
>
> Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.
>
> Marie
>
> Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
> >
> > Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%83%c2%82%c3%82%c2%a0
> >
> >
> > The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> >  
> > Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
> >
> > Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
> >
> > I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
> >  
> > in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
> >  
> > the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
> >  
> > as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
> >  
> > anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > To:
> > Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> > Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> > she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> > WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> > lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> > establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> > guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> > standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> > imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> > husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> > of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> > probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> > point.
> >
> > Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> > into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> > what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> > Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> > The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> > titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> > through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
> >
> > In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> > Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> > Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> > Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> > else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> > deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> > repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> > had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> > theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> > was one of the people who most gained from it.
> >
> > There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> > The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> > traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> > offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> > have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> > wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> > had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> > could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> > daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> > wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> > king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> > over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> > her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> > this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> > Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> > predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> > Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> > thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> > inheritance.
> >
> > I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> > have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> > marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> > thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> > against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> > various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> > Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> > that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> > learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> > through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> > she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> > it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > Book
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
> >
> > Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> > husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> > point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> > Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> > wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> > Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> > to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> > Attainting her and conf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-30 20:25:57
liz williams
Does it begin with an A?  Or a T (and end with an e?)
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 2:16
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 
Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?

Judy
Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).

Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.

Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.

The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.

The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)

Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.

Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 

To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.

Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-

25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)

29 June 1471  Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).

Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.

At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.

April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.

23 February 1475  An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
"The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."

Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.

>
> Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.

Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.

Marie

Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
>
> Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
>
> Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
>
> I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
>
> while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
>  
> in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
>  
> the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
>  
> as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
>  
> anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
>
>  
>
> Marie
>
> Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> point.
>
> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
>
> In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> was one of the people who most gained from it.
>
> There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> inheritance.
>
> I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
>
> Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> Attainting her and conf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>








Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-09-30 20:26:46
liz williams
"kept out of society"
 
Oh Karen that is a great euphemism!
 
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 2:12
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 
Yes, Hall was writing long after the fact and must have had sources, not
necessarily just Tudor historians or gossip. He doesn't get it right all the
time, and I wouldn't rely on him without some backup closer to events. This
is one quote that can be taken absolutely at face value (whether Hall was
correct in his assessment is a different story). Young Warwick was kept out
of society for so long that there were things he just didn't know. Nothing
about his sexuality at all.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 18:48:18 -0000
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
Book

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> It's from Hall, btw.
>
> "Edward Plantagenet erle of Wanvike, of whome ye haue heard before, beyng kept
in the Towre almost from his tender age, that is to saye, fro his first yere of
the kyng to thys. xv. yere, out of al company of men & sight of beastes, in so
much that he coude not descerne a Goose from a Capon."
>
> In its full context, it does seem more an 'experience of the world' thing than
a comment on his mental faculties.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Karen. But Hall must have had a source, either a Tudor historian or
Tudor gossip. Hall published his Chronicles in about 1542 and incorporated
both More and Vergil, occasionally embellishing them (as with the couplet
"Jack of Norfolk be not too bold
For Dicken thy master is bought and sold"
for which I'd love to know the source if it's not the figment of Hall's
imagination.

At any rate, he would have been about a year old when young Warwick was
executed in November 1499 and obviously was not speaking from first-hand
knowledge.

Carol






Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-01 20:38:16
Vickie Cook
Marie,
As always, I very much enjoyed your comments
Vickie

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, where would I be saying that? I can't find these words, or any words
> even close to these, in my post. Perhaps you've got me mixed up with someone
> who doesn't know the story of the countess's life.

Karen this is pointless. You said in your previous post that it was only my opinion that the Countess had committed treason. These actions above are the treasonable acts which she committed, not in my opinion but in fact. We are constantly at cross purposes because - it seems to me, if I may speak frankly - you approach history as a blame game and constantly assume that I am doing the same. I am not. From the viewpoint of Edward IV's kingship Anne Beauchamp had committed treason; from the viewpoint of Henry VI's kingship she had returned to her allegiance. There is no blame attached because I am not looking at the events of the time as a partial Yorkist but am simply looking at the facts, seeing what people did and why. This holds for the business over Beaulieu Sanctuary and the division of the Warwick inheritance as well. You seemed to me to be presenting the Countess as an innocent wronged lady and Edward and his brothers as greedy oppressors, all as
bad as each other. As I recall, you blamed Richard - alone or with his brothers, I'm not sure - for keeping her shut up in Beaulieu Abbey. I merely pointed out that in her petition the Countess specifically named King Edward and only King Edward as responsible for her imprisonment there, and that there is evidence that it was Richard who was responsible for getting her out. You now seem to be agreed about this so I am confused as to what the argument is all about. I also pointed out that we do not know whether King Edward would have been prepared to return the Countess's lands but the Countess' petition suggests that it was unlikely, which as Eileen (was it Eileen?) rightly points out would have left Richard needing to get the best deal he could for his wife - and of course himself into the bargain, granted.

You also claim that I reject Hicks because he doesn't like Richard. I frankly said nothing of the sort. I said his interpretations need to be treated with caution because he has an agenda and his statements about the legal situations that applied are frequently incorrect. There are as it happens also Ricardian authors whose writings I treat with caution for similar reasons.
But to stay with Hicks, he tends to present King Edward as unable to stand up to Gloucester in order to blame Richard for things that the sources suggest were actually royal policy.
Richard and George prevented Edward from attainting Warwick and Montagu; that is on record. But it is only Hicks' interpretation that they did so because they wanted to hold Warwick's lands by inheritance rather than royal grant in order to protect themselves from Acts of Resumption (rather than, for instance, to spare their wives' feelings or for old times' sake). I know the Hicks interpretation has been repeated by a lot of writers but that doesn't make it any more sound. As regards the Beauchamp inheritance, avoiding those attainders would have made no difference one way or the other as the lands belonged to the Countess in her own right. As regards the Neville lands, these were subject to a male entail so that by inheritance they would have passed to Montagu's son rather than Isabel or Anne, a point Hicks is happy to acknowledge in the context of 1483 when it suits his argument.
There is another big problem with Hicks' interpretation of Richard's situation re the Neville lands in 1483, and that is that, although Warwick and Montagu had not been attainted by Parliament, in the wake of Archbishop Neville's treason in 1473 King Edward had appointed a commission of oyer and terminer to try them posthumously for their treasons of 1470-1 (plus the Earl of Oxford and a lot of more minor individuals who had fought on the losing side at Barnet). This commission resulted in Warwick and Montagu being outlawed, which served to put the stamp of legality on the seizure of their lands.


Edward avoided invoking the law when it came to his treatment of Anne Beauchamp. But that was the way things happened in those days. I'm not an expert in medieval law, but I do know that "innocent until proven guilty" was not a notion that had yet been arrived at - late 18th century development I think. And the law was such a blunt instrument, with its draconian and barbaric penalties, that justice and mercy often demanded a little bending of it. There is an interesting article in the current Ricardian Bulletin by a legal historian who is beginning to suspect that the interminable delays that you see in a lot of legal cases of the period were perhaps not due, as usually supposed, merely to the slow grinding of an unwieldy system, but were a means of using imprisonment as a punishment rather than what the law too often offered, which was a stark choice between the death penalty on the one hand and acquittal/ pardon on the other.
If Edward had returned the Countess her lands she would have controlled a huge power base, and there was always the danger she might remarry . . . . I am not dfefending his actions, just seeking to work out his possible motivations.
Can we please wrap this up?
Marie

>
> Or is it that you have a different standard of 'guilt' and 'innocence' for
> the countess (and others) than you do for Richard? Because if going to
> France in 1470 &c &c is enough for you to declare the countess guilty of
> treason, then the executions (without trial) of Hastings, Rivers, Grey and
> Vaughan should be enough to allow someone to declare Richard guilty of
> murder. This is a crime of which is often accused, his 'guilt' decided, and
> for which is he nearly always excused by his followers. The application of
> the Richard Standard of Guilt/Innocence across the board would be a step in
> the right direction.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:05:34 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, Karen, I'm confused. Are you saying maybe the Countess didn't go to
> France with her husband in 1470, stay there with him and cross back over to
> England in the same fleet as Margaret of Anjou?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-01 21:38:26
Vickie Cook
Booooo! Bad joke


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 
Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?

Judy
Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).

Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.

Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.

The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.

The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)

Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.

Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 

To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.

Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-

25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)

29 June 1471  Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).

Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.

At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.

April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.

23 February 1475  An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
"The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."

Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.

>
> Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.

Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.

Marie

Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
>
> Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
>
> Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
>
> I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
>
> while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
>  
> in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
>  
> the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
>  
> as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
>  
> anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
>
>  
>
> Marie
>
> Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> point.
>
> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
>
> In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> was one of the people who most gained from it.
>
> There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> inheritance.
>
> I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
>
> Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> Attainting her and conf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>








Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-01 21:43:05
EileenB
But Vickie...surely not as bad a joke as Charlton Heston playing Thomas More...:0)

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> Booooo! Bad joke
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>  
> Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?
>
> Judy
> Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).
>
> Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.
>
> Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.
>
> The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.
>
> The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)
>
> Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.
>
> Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 
>
> To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>  
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
> >
> > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
>
> Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-
>
> 25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)
>
> 29 June 1471 â€" Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).
>
> Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.
>
> At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.
>
> April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.
>
> 23 February 1475 â€" An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
> "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
> Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
> minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."
>
> Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.
>
> >
> > Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.
>
> Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.
>
> Marie
>
> Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
> >
> > Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%83%c2%82%c3%82%c2%a0
> >
> >
> > The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> >  
> > Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
> >
> > Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
> >
> > I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
> >  
> > in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
> >  
> > the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
> >  
> > as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
> >  
> > anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
> >
> >  
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> > Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> > she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> > WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> > lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> > establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> > guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> > standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> > imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> > husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> > of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> > probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> > point.
> >
> > Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> > into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> > what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> > Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> > The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> > titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> > through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
> >
> > In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> > Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> > Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> > Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> > else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> > deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> > repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> > had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> > theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> > was one of the people who most gained from it.
> >
> > There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> > The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> > traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> > offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> > have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> > wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> > had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> > could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> > daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> > wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> > king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> > over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> > her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> > this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> > Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> > predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> > Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> > thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> > inheritance.
> >
> > I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> > have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> > marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> > thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> > against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> > various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> > Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> > that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> > learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> > through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> > she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> > it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > Book
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
> >
> > Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> > husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> > point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> > Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> > wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> > Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> > to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> > Attainting her and conf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-01 21:56:27
Vickie Cook
This is true!
 

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 
But Vickie...surely not as bad a joke as Charlton Heston playing Thomas More...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> Booooo! Bad joke
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>  
> Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?
>
> Judy
> Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).
>
> Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.
>
> Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.
>
> The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.
>
> The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)
>
> Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.
>
> Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 
>
> To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>  
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).à
> >
> > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
>
> Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-
>
> 25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)
>
> 29 June 1471 â¬" Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).
>
> Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.
>
> At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.
>
> April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.
>
> 23 February 1475 â¬" An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
> "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
> Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
> minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."
>
> Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.
>
> >
> > Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.
>
> Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.
>
> Marie
>
> Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation.à
> >
> > Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%83%e2%80%9a%c3%82%c2%a0
> >
> >
> > The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> > à
> > Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
> >
> > Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
> >
> > I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
> > à
> > in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
> > à
> > the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
> > à
> > as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
> > à
> > anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
> >
> > à
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> > Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> > she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> > WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> > lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> > establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> > guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> > standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> > imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> > husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> > of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> > probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> > point.
> >
> > Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> > into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> > what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> > Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> > The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> > titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> > through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
> >
> > In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> > Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> > Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> > Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> > else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> > deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> > repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> > had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> > theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> > was one of the people who most gained from it.
> >
> > There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> > The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> > traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> > offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> > have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> > wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> > had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> > could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> > daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> > wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> > king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> > over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> > her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> > this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> > Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> > predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> > Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> > thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> > inheritance.
> >
> > I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> > have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> > marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> > thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> > against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> > various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> > Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> > that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> > learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> > through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> > she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> > it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > Book
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
> >
> > Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> > husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> > point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> > Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> > wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> > Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> > to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> > Attainting her and conf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-01 22:06:36
EileenB
Nice to see you back Vickie...Eileen



--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> This is true!
>  
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>  
> But Vickie...surely not as bad a joke as Charlton Heston playing Thomas More...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@> wrote:
> >
> > Booooo! Bad joke
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >  
> > Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?
> >
> > Judy
> > Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> >  
> > From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).
> >
> > Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.
> >
> > Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.
> >
> > The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.
> >
> > The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)
> >
> > Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.
> >
> > Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 
> >
> > To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >  
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
> > >
> > > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
> >
> > Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-
> >
> > 25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)
> >
> > 29 June 1471 â€" Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).
> >
> > Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.
> >
> > At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.
> >
> > April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.
> >
> > 23 February 1475 â€" An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
> > "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
> > Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
> > minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."
> >
> > Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.
> >
> > >
> > > Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.
> >
> > Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
> > >
> > > Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%83%c2%83%c3%a2%c2%80%c2%9a%c3%83%c2%82%c3%82%c2%a0
> > >
> > >
> > > The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
> > >
> > > Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
> > >
> > > I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
> > >  
> > > in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
> > >  
> > > the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
> > >  
> > > as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
> > >  
> > > anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> > > Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> > > she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> > > WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> > > lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> > > establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> > > guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> > > standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> > > imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> > > husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> > > of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> > > probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> > > point.
> > >
> > > Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> > > into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> > > what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> > > Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> > > The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> > > titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> > > through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
> > >
> > > In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> > > Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> > > Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> > > Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> > > else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> > > deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> > > repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> > > had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> > > theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> > > was one of the people who most gained from it.
> > >
> > > There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> > > The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> > > traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> > > offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> > > have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> > > wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> > > had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> > > could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> > > daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> > > wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> > > king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> > > over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> > > her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> > > this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> > > Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> > > predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> > > Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> > > thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> > > inheritance.
> > >
> > > I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> > > have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> > > marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> > > thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> > > against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> > > various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> > > Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> > > that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> > > learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> > > through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> > > she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > > Book
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > > > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > > > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > > > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > > > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > > > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > > > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
> > >
> > > Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> > > husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> > > point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> > > Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> > > wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> > > Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> > > to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> > > Attainting her and conf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-01 22:16:46
Stephen Lark
Perhaps it should have been Danny Kaye, who had experience playing storytellers, unless he was dead by then.

----- Original Message -----
From: Vickie Cook
To:
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book



This is true!


From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


But Vickie...surely not as bad a joke as Charlton Heston playing Thomas More...:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> Booooo! Bad joke
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
> Â
> Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?
>
> Judy
> Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
> Â
> From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).
>
> Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.
>
> Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.
>
> The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.
>
> The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)
>
> Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.
>
> Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time.Â
>
> To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin.Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
> Â
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).ÃÂ
> >
> > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
>
> Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-
>
> 25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)
>
> 29 June 1471 â¬" Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).
>
> Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.
>
> At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.
>
> April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.
>
> 23 February 1475 â¬" An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
> "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
> Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
> minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."
>
> Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.
>
> >
> > Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.
>
> Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.
>
> Marie
>
> Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation.ÃÂ
> >
> > Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%83%e2%80%9a%c3%82
> >
> >
> > The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
> >
> > Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
> >
> > I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
> > ÃÂ
> > in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
> > ÃÂ
> > the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
> > ÃÂ
> > as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
> > ÃÂ
> > anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> > Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> > she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> > WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> > lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> > establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> > guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> > standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> > imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> > husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> > of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> > probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> > point.
> >
> > Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> > into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> > what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> > Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> > The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> > titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> > through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
> >
> > In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> > Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> > Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> > Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> > else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> > deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> > repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> > had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> > theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> > was one of the people who most gained from it.
> >
> > There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> > The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> > traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> > offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> > have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> > wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> > had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> > could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> > daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> > wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> > king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> > over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> > her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> > this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> > Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> > predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> > Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> > thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> > inheritance.
> >
> > I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> > have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> > marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> > thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> > against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> > various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> > Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> > that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> > learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> > through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> > she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> > it.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > Book
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
> >
> > Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> > husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> > point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> > Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> > wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> > Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> > to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> > Attainting her and conf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-01 22:17:41
Judy Thomson
Yes, I know....

Judy,
hiding behind chair
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book


 
Booooo! Bad joke

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 
Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?

Judy
Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 
From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).

Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.

Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.

The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.

The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)

Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.

Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time. 

To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin. 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu). 
>
> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.

Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-

25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)

29 June 1471  Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).

Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.

At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.

April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.

23 February 1475  An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
"The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."

Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.

>
> Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.

Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.

Marie

Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation. 
>
> Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
> Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
>
> Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
>
> I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>  
>
> while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
>  
> in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
>  
> the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
>  
> as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
>  
> anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
>
>  
>
> Marie
>
> Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> point.
>
> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
>
> In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> was one of the people who most gained from it.
>
> There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> inheritance.
>
> I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> it.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> Book
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
>
> Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> Attainting her and conf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>










Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-01 23:34:09
Vickie
Thanks Eileen. I decided for my own peace of mind I would just avoid reading certain posts. Besides there are those on here much better at responding then I am!
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:06 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Nice to see you back Vickie...Eileen
>
> --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
> >
> > This is true!
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> > But Vickie...surely not as bad a joke as Charlton Heston playing Thomas More...:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Booooo! Bad joke
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).
> > >
> > > Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.
> > >
> > > Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.
> > >
> > > The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.
> > >
> > > The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)
> > >
> > > Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.
> > >
> > > Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time.Â
> > >
> > > To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin.Â
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
> > >
> > > Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-
> > >
> > > 25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)
> > >
> > > 29 June 1471 â¬" Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).
> > >
> > > Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.
> > >
> > > At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.
> > >
> > > April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.
> > >
> > > 23 February 1475 â¬" An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
> > > "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
> > > Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
> > > minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."
> > >
> > > Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.
> > >
> > > Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation.ÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%83%e2%80%9a%c3%82
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÂ
> > > > Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
> > > >
> > > > Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
> > > >
> > > > I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > >


Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-02 01:13:31
mcjohn\_wt\_net
[With vast solemnity.] Which would have been the most rampant typecasting.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps it should have been Danny Kaye, who had experience playing storytellers, unless he was dead by then.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vickie Cook
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
>
> This is true!
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 3:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>
>
> But Vickie...surely not as bad a joke as Charlton Heston playing Thomas More...:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie Cook <lolettecook@> wrote:
> >
> > Booooo! Bad joke
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> > Â
> > Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?
> >
> > Judy
> > Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> >
> > Â
> > From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).
> >
> > Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.
> >
> > Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.
> >
> > The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.
> >
> > The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)
> >
> > Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.
> >
> > Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time.Â
> >
> > To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin.Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
> > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> >
> > Â
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).ÂÂ
> > >
> > > George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
> >
> > Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-
> >
> > 25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)
> >
> > 29 June 1471 â€" Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).
> >
> > Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.
> >
> > At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.
> >
> > April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.
> >
> > 23 February 1475 â€" An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
> > "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
> > Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
> > minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."
> >
> > Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.
> >
> > >
> > > Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.
> >
> > Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation.ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%83%c2%83%c3%a2%c2%80%c2%9a%c3%83%c2%82
> > >
> > >
> > > The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
> > >
> > > Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
> > >
> > > I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
> > > ÂÂ
> > > the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
> > > Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
> > > she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
> > > WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
> > > lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
> > > establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
> > > guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
> > > standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
> > > imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
> > > husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
> > > of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
> > > probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
> > > point.
> > >
> > > Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
> > > into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
> > > what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
> > > Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
> > > The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
> > > titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
> > > through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
> > >
> > > In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
> > > Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
> > > Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
> > > Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
> > > else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
> > > deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
> > > repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
> > > had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
> > > theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
> > > was one of the people who most gained from it.
> > >
> > > There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
> > > The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
> > > traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
> > > offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
> > > have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
> > > wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
> > > had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
> > > could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
> > > daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
> > > wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
> > > king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
> > > over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
> > > her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
> > > this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
> > > Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
> > > predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
> > > Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
> > > thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
> > > inheritance.
> > >
> > > I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
> > > have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
> > > marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
> > > thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
> > > against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
> > > various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
> > > Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
> > > that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
> > > learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
> > > through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
> > > she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
> > > Book
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > . If the Countess was suspected of
> > > > treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
> > > > didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
> > > > of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
> > > > attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
> > > > and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
> > > > an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
> > >
> > > Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
> > > husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
> > > point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
> > > Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
> > > wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
> > > Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
> > > to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
> > > Attainting her and conf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book

2012-10-02 11:38:59
Paul Trevor Bale
On stage Chuck was very good, but then he took the play onto the film in which he not only played More but directed the film. I didn't think he cast the also rans as well as the Schofield version, with the exception of Vanessa Redgrave as his wife. Of course the movie has Orson Welles, Robert Shaw, Sussanna York, Leo McKern, John Hurt etc. For someone so experienced in film you would think he would know you cannot just film a stage play and have it work in a different medium. And very few actors can direct themselves well. Welles and Clint Eastwood are the only two I can think of. [before you fans jump up screaming Branagh was nowhere near as goos in his movies of Henry V or Hamlet as he was on stage directed by someone else]!
Paul


On 1 Oct 2012, at 21:43, EileenB wrote:

> But Vickie...surely not as bad a joke as Charlton Heston playing Thomas More...:0)
>
> --- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>>
>> Booooo! Bad joke
>>
>>
>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>> To: "" <>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>>
>> Â
>> Caught that last bit, David. The non-PC joke over here is: If a Man and Wife get a divorce in [insert state name], are they still Brother and Sister?
>>
>> Judy
>> Please, no rotten tomatoes, folks.
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: david rayner <mailto:theblackprussian%40yahoo.co.uk>
>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>>
>>
>> Â
>> From about 1300 landowners were free to devise their lands by will. Previously the entire estate had gone to the eldest son or, if there were no sons, it would be partitioned equally between the surviving daughters (or their heirs).
>>
>> Many men after 1300 decided to devise estates in "tail male", meaning that they would descend to the senior heir in direct and unbroken male descent. Only when there were no such men left would they return to descendants traced through female lines.
>>
>> Entails could also be used to establish cadet branches, giving a number of estates to a younger son, but stipulating that they return to the senior line if the cadet branch ended in a female.
>>
>> The Yorkshire lands in question were originally held by the Nevilles of Raby. When Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland, took a 2nd wife of royal blood (Joan Beaufort) he entailed these and the Cumbrian lands on his male offspring by her, cutting out his heirs from a first marriage, who had to be content with the Durham lands around Raby which were worth rather less than the Cumbrian and Yorkshire property. Not surprisingly the senior line contested this bitterly and naturally took opposite sides to the junior Nevilles in the wars.
>>
>> The bulk of the property thus passed to Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, who added the southern lands (and title) of his wife Alice Montagu. He had 3 sons; Richard Earl of Warwick, Thomas (killed at Wakefield) and John Lord Montagu. When Warwick succeeded he of course added the vast Warwick and Despencer inheritance, making him the richest man in England outside the King and (possibly) the Duke of Buckingham. But he had only daughters, so title to Middleham etc passed to his brother John's son George Duke of Bedford. (By the way the "lack of funds to support the title" claim is a legal fiction; many Dukes and Earls were granted cash from state funds to support their titles: George had simply lost his usefulness as a potential husband of Princess Elizabeth.)
>>
>> Whatever legal title the King gave to Gloucester, it was well understood that in the long term the only reliable title to land was by legal inheritance; newly drafted legislation breaking these laws could just as easily be reversed, and usually was by new regimes, or for new heirs. So, on the death of George Neville, young Richard Neville Lord Latimer was legal heir even under Edward's grant to Richard, and most definitely by the laws of inheritance. Edward's botched attempt to settle the issue, presumably to stop Clarence and Gloucester going to war over the Warwick lands, is typical of the messy conflicts of interest he left behind for others to sort out. Anything for a quiet reign.
>>
>> Probably Pollard does overestimate the effect of this probable loss of Middleham on Richard's motivation; but Richard had built his northern power base on possession of these lands, in effect he was successor to Warwick as landowner and as head of a large armed faction drawn from the area (consider the number of Yorkshire knights in his plantation of men in the south). If he didn't become King, he stood to lose all this (or at least the right to pass it on to his son), and consideration of such issues was of utmost importance to magnates of the time.Â
>>
>> To explain the frequency of "idiocy" in the medieval baronage, we need only reflect that marriage customs in this society bear striking comparison to those in certain parts of the southern United States: you washed your hair until you were 14, then you married your cousin.Â
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 23:19
>> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>>
>> Â
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just to clarify this; the Yorkshire lands (which included Richard's home and from where the bulk of his retainers were drawn) were legally the property of George Neville, Duke of Bedford (son of Lord Montagu).ÃÂ
>>>
>>> George was treated as though his father had been attainted, and was stripped of his lands and title. Gloucester, as his guardian, had control of the estates as long as George (or his male heir) lived. But George never married, and died in May 1483; in this case Middleham et al should have descended to young Lord Latimer, who was in fact a ward of the same Archbishop of Canterbury who reluctantly placed the crown on Richard's head.
>>
>> Okay, David, I have read this version too it is quite condensed version, which gives a particular impression. When I look in detail at the chronology it's not nearly so clear that Richard initially understood his situation. I would be interested in feedback, but basically:-
>>
>> 25 April 1470 - As Clarence and Warwick were in flight,county escheators were ordered to seize the lands of them and other rebels. The Countess' lands would I guess have been included as they were her husband's property during his life. (CPR p. 205)
>>
>> 29 June 1471 â¬" Gloucester was granted in tail male Warwick's lordships of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton in Yorkshire and Penrith in Westmorland, together with the rest of the Earl's entailed estates in three counties (Ross, Edward IV, p.187).
>>
>> Autum 1472 - Amongst the parliament rolls for that sitting is written: "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord. . . " was being begged by " his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords" not to do so.
>>
>> At a date unknown to me - Richard was granted the wardship of Montagu's son, George Neville Duke of Bedford.
>>
>> April 1473 - Warwick and Montagu were outlawed in Middlesex and Hertfordshire for fighting against King Edward at Barnet (TNA KB 9/76/M4d). Gloucester and Clarence had been appointed to head the oyer and terminer commission that achieved this, but neither turned up bto any of its sessions.
>>
>> 23 February 1475 â¬" An Act was passed regarding the Neville lands:-
>> "The King our sovereign lord, considering the great and heinous treasons and other offences committed against his Highness by John Neville, late Marquis Montagu, intended by authority of this present parliament to have attainted and disabled the said late marquis and his heirs for ever, as he deserved; but our sovereign lord, at the humble request and prayer of his most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, and other lords of his blood, as well as of his other lords, now refrains from so doing, and intends to proceed no further in that matter.
>> Neverthless, our same sovereign lord, recalling the great and laudable service that his said most dear brother, Richard Duke of Gloucester, has done on various occasions to his Highness, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, ordains, decrees and enacts on this present 23 February that his said brother shall have, hold, possess and enjoy, to him and his heirs, the honours, castles, lordships and manors of Middleham and Sheriff Hutton, with all their members and appurtenances, the lordships and manors ... Saving to all the King's liege people and their heirs not attainted, other than the male begottten of the body of the said late marquis and Isabel his wife, and other than our said sovereign lord and his heirs, and the lords of whom any of the foregoing are held and their heirs, as regards any wardship of any part of the same by reason of the
>> minority of the male heirs begotten of the body of the said marquis, and the heirs of Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees of the same earl, and the feoffees of Richard late earl of Warwick, and the feoffees to the use of the said Richard late earl of Salisbury, and the feoffees to use the of the said Richard late earl of Warwick, and their heirs and assigns, and the heirs and assigns of each of them, in and of the foregoing and every part of them, such right, title and interest as they had or should have had if this Act had never been made. Also it is ordained by the said authority that, if the said male issue begotten or coming of the body of the said John Neville knight die without male issue coming of their bodies while the Duke is alive, that the said duke shall then have and enjoy all the things stated for term of his life."
>>
>> Early 1478 - In parliament, Edward deprived the landless George Neville of his title (which he had only bestowed on him before the Re-adeption, when he had been supposed to marry Princess Elizabeth), and gave it to his baby son.
>>
>>>
>>> Pollard (RIII & The Princes) suggests that keeping Middleham was a major motive for Richard to take the crown, thus forestalling the transfer to Latimer, since Richard probably knew about George's ailing health.
>>
>> Is it definite that Latimer's claim was solid, given that it would mean rolling back to the Earl of Salisbury? What are the rules on inheritance by previously bypassed lines? I can't see any indication that Latimer or his descendants ever attempted to make a claim. I am a little perplexed.
>>
>> Marie
>>
>> Although Richard had been granted the property for life, he clearly wanted it to become the centre of the estate he passed on to his son, which the law as it stood did not allow. It's also likely that a Woodville dominated government hostile to Richard would have quashed the life grant and given Latimer immediate possession of Middleham, much in the manner of attainders being reversed on appeal in the next generation.ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Unsurprisingly Henry VII treated the estates as having been forfeited by Richard's "treason", and the Latimers never came into their inheritance.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Neville,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford%c3%83%e2%80%9a%c3%82
>>>
>>>
>>> The Hicks article referenced probably has more detail on the subject.
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 20:36
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Apologies if it's been mentioned, but if Richard's claim to the Warwick lands were to be through his wife's inheritance, then it was limited to her paternal lands only.
>>>
>>> Granted this was the majority of the estates, but significantly it excluded the Neville lordships of Penrith, Sheriff Hutton and Middleham, which were entailed on the male offspring of Ralph Neville and Joan Beaufort. They were the rightful inheritance of young Richard Neville, Lord Latimer. Though a minor in Richard's wardship, he would have been entitled to them on attaining his majority.
>>>
>>> I've even seen it suggested that a motive for Richard claiming the crown was his determination not to lose Middleham, though he would hardly have been able to spend much time there as king.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012, 18:43
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> while richard WAS never charged with anything in his lifetime. there are definitely records to prove his innocence and that he was the victim of a tudor frame up.
>>> ÃÂ
>>> in real life, i have experienced so people escape justice because of legal technicalities or a lack of witnesses. at one time innocent until proven guilty meant something. that was when we had a justice system. we now have a legal system. all one needs to do is lie your face off and secure a half decent lawyer. case closed!
>>> ÃÂ
>>> the criminal is let off for lack of evidence, or the police didn't follow EXACTLY the letter of the law. so such arguement totaly raises the ire in me.
>>> ÃÂ
>>> as a victim of a hit and run with no witnesses, but i knew who the driver was..she walked scot free. no charges at all. i now suffer migraines and loss of colour vision. btw, i'm not her only victim. but, golly no witnesses when this dangerous bipolar woman decides she is going to attack using her vehicle. her story is..the other guy hit her! your word against hers..and of course they can't use previous complaints..because unless there are charges leading to conviction the info is inadmissable.
>>> ÃÂ
>>> anne beauchamp's behaviour is very indicitve of her ability to commit treason. she was a for profit personality. she claims innocence to edward, and then tells h7 she was always a loyal lancasterian. definitely a do and say whatever it takes to get what you want personality. not a trustworthy person.
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 9/25/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's Book
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Received: Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 9:28 PM
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Marie
>>>
>>> Then, as now, a trial was required before guilt could be established. The
>>> Countess was never tried. So the best one could say is 'this or that thing
>>> she did was/wasn't treason'. Just as a lot of people state that Richard III
>>> WAS guilty of all sorts of things, he was never tried on any charges in his
>>> lifetime, so his legal guilt cannot be established. (There's no need to
>>> establish innocence for either of them, given the innocent till proven
>>> guilty principle. All we can do is discuss the balance of probabilities). A
>>> standard that's applied to one person should be applied to all. I can
>>> imagine all I want, with or without evidence, that she was involved in her
>>> husband's various rebellions. As an intellectual exercise, 'did the Countess
>>> of Warwick commit treason?' is an interesting topic of conversation. She
>>> probably did. But she was never tried for it and found guilty. That's my
>>> point.
>>>
>>> Attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't have put them permanently
>>> into Clarence and Gloucester's hands. That's not 'pure Hicks', that's me and
>>> what I've learned of the laws of attainder. (Hicks barely mentions the
>>> Countess in his book about Warwick. Pollard does a far better job there.)
>>> The only thing (as Brian said) that could have put those lands, property and
>>> titles permanently into Clarence and Gloucester's hands was inheritance
>>> through the Countess's daughters. This was what was engineered.
>>>
>>> In 1459, when the entire York/Nevill party were attainted, the castle of
>>> Middleham was put into the hands of Lord Fitzhugh (Salisbury's son-in-law).
>>> Had their been any doubt then (as there was later) of Fitzhugh's loyalty to
>>> Henry VI, that could easily have been taken from him and given to someone
>>> else. An act of resumption could have done the same thing. That's why the
>>> deal had to be made more permanent. Yes, acts of parliament could be
>>> repealed, but what woman, now stripped of all she owned, could possibly have
>>> had the power to force the repeal of the act that declared her dead? Her
>>> theoretically most powerful supporter wouldn't have helped her there, as he
>>> was one of the people who most gained from it.
>>>
>>> There seems to have been two reasons the countess wasn't tried for treason.
>>> The first being a probable lack of evidence. If she was a demonstrable
>>> traitor, why let her get away with it? Was she ever pardoned for any
>>> offences? (Genuine question, I haven't come across anything, but I might
>>> have missed it.) Given a well established practice of demanding lands from
>>> wealthy wives in order to secure pardon for recalcitrant husbands, if Edward
>>> had anything solid to hold over the countess, this is a course of action he
>>> could have taken. He didn't. He had the countess declared dead so her
>>> daughters could inherit. This is the key point. The second reason is that it
>>> wouldn't have given secure tenure of her lands, property and titles to the
>>> king's brothers. Using Maud Stanhope as an example, the property she signed
>>> over to Anthony Wydeville was his only for her lifetime, then it reverted to
>>> her heirs. In the case of Clarence and Gloucester, only one had children at
>>> this point, and the lives of children were sometimes short. If Clarence and
>>> Gloucester had a 'for the countess's lifetime' deal, and their wives
>>> predeceased them (as they did), and their children predeceased them (as
>>> Richard's did), they would have lost their hold on the property. The only
>>> thing that gave them security was to have that property through the laws of
>>> inheritance.
>>>
>>> I'm more than happy to discuss just what the countess might or might not
>>> have done (beyond being with her husband just about every moment of their
>>> marriage) that could be interpreted as treason. As I said, that would make a
>>> thoroughly interesting discussion. Being married to a man who rebelled
>>> against his king isn't enough. At the Parliament of Devils, the wives of the
>>> various Yorkist 'rebels' were specifically excluded, except the countess of
>>> Salisbury, and it's pretty clear from the wording of the act of attainder
>>> that she had done something that left evidence behind. Given what I've
>>> learned about the Warwicks' marriage (which isn't much, I've had to pick
>>> through tiny clues) I don't doubt for a moment that had there been something
>>> she could do to support her husband, the countess of Warwick would have done
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:53:24 -0000
>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Re; Beaufort tears - and Richard's
>>> Book
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
>>> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> . If the Countess was suspected of
>>>> treason, she should have been tried and, if found guilty, attainted. That
>>>> didn't happen. Of course, that could be because she wasn't in fact suspected
>>>> of treason. Or it could be because Edward, Clarence and Gloucester knew that
>>>> attainting her and confiscating her lands wouldn't put them into Clarence
>>>> and Gloucester's hands. The only way that could be done was by engineering
>>>> an 'inheritance' for her daughters.
>>>
>>> Karen, she clearly WAS guilty of treason. She fled to France with her
>>> husband (self-proclaimed treason, and her lands were confiscated at that
>>> point), and she stayed with him there whilst he made a deal with Margaret of
>>> Anjou. She accompanied Queen Margaret back to England in 1471. You also
>>> wrote that she made her daughters spectacular marriages - one to a Prince of
>>> Wales her husband was helping to restore to the throne, so you yourself seem
>>> to be imagining her as actively involved with the Re-adeption.
>>> Attainting her and conf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

David Baldwin

2016-04-26 19:13:09
Nicholas Brown

I just heard that David Baldwin passed away on April 4 aged 69. How very sad. I enjoyed his books. RIP.
Nico
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Richard III's Greyfriars grave dies aged 69
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Ri...Historian and author David Baldwin who correctly predicted the location of Richard III's grave 26 years before archaeologists uncovered him has died ag...View on www.leicestermercur...Preview by Yahoo

Re: David Baldwin

2016-04-26 19:25:26
Pamela Bain
Gosh, at my age, I find that to be very young! That is a loss for all of us.
On Apr 26, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I just heard that David Baldwin passed away on April 4 aged 69. How very sad. I enjoyed his books. RIP.
Nico
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Richard III's Greyfriars grave dies aged 69
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Ri... Historian and author David Baldwin who correctly predicted the location of Richard III's grave 26 years before archaeologists uncovered him has died ag... View on www.leicestermercur... Preview by Yahoo

Re: David Baldwin

2016-04-27 10:51:20
Jessie Skinner
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... []
Sent: 26/04/2016 19:25
To:
Subject: Re: David Baldwin

Gosh, at my age, I find that to be very young! That is a loss for all of us.
On Apr 26, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I just heard that David Baldwin passed away on April 4 aged 69. How very sad. I enjoyed his books. RIP.
Nico
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Richard III's Greyfriars grave dies aged 69
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Ri... Historian and author David Baldwin who correctly predicted the location of Richard III's grave 26 years before archaeologists uncovered him has died ag... View on www.leicestermercur... Preview by Yahoo

Re: David Baldwin

2016-04-27 10:54:13
Jessie Skinner
That is terribly sad. I don't know what is happening with 2016. So many deaths. I enjoyed his books too.

JessFrom: Pamela Bain pbain@... []
Sent: 26/04/2016 19:25
To:
Subject: Re: David Baldwin

Gosh, at my age, I find that to be very young! That is a loss for all of us.
On Apr 26, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I just heard that David Baldwin passed away on April 4 aged 69. How very sad. I enjoyed his books. RIP.
Nico
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Richard III's Greyfriars grave dies aged 69
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Ri... Historian and author David Baldwin who correctly predicted the location of Richard III's grave 26 years before archaeologists uncovered him has died ag... View on www.leicestermercur... Preview by Yahoo

Re: David Baldwin

2016-04-29 08:22:44
Hilary Jones
I echo all these sentiments; I liked Baldwin's books. It's a sad loss for us and the cause. We desperately need a few new young champions to carry on the work. H

From: "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 April 2016, 10:51
Subject: RE: David Baldwin

From: mailto:
Sent: 26/04/2016 19:25
To:
Subject: Re: David Baldwin

Gosh, at my age, I find that to be very young! That is a loss for all of us.
On Apr 26, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Nicholas Brown mailto:nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I just heard that David Baldwin passed away on April 4 aged 69. How very sad. I enjoyed his books. RIP.
Nico
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Richard III's Greyfriars grave dies aged 69
Historian David Baldwin who predicted the location of Ri... Historian and author David Baldwin who correctly predicted the location of Richard III's grave 26 years before archaeologists uncovered him has died ag... View on www.leicestermercur... Preview by Yahoo


Re: David Baldwin

2016-04-29 17:53:03
b.eileen25
Yes..he will be missed. I enjoyed his books....
Richard III
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.