Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:

http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm

And this here's the text in question:

"Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
speak it of naught."

This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.

So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"

Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."

The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
>
> http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
>
> And this here's the text in question:
>
> "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> speak it of naught."
>



There is a lot more to this little story -- who Mistlebrook was, where he was employed, who this Potter was, and who his next-door neighbor was who was drawn to the midnight arrival and heard the news -- but I'm hoping Marie can provide it so I don't subject the forum here to another of my half-remembered/half-baked stories.

Marie?

Katy

mcjohn wrote:
>
> Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. <snip>
>
> "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> speak it of naught."
><snip>
>
> So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?" <snip>

Carol responds:

Like any humanist historian, More invents conversations. Many of his conversations must be pure fabrications because no participant survived to report them to More (or Morton). Others also seem to be either invented or distorted for More's or Morton's own purposes (the "withered arm" is an obvious example). This bit about Pottier and Mistlebrook is at best a remembered or overheard conversation between two nonentities repeated to More by an unnamed "credible informant" (in which case, it's at best second-hand testimony) or both the conversation and its participants are invented.

The second possibility is my view: More is poking fun at the tendency of Vergil and other historians of the time to repeat rumor and hearsay as evidence. (He does the same thing in saying that "it is for truth reported" that Richard was two years in his mother's womb. I'm pretty sure that More doubts that "truth.") Lamb thinks otherwise and is at pains to discredit two people that no one has ever heard of and a decades-old conversation that More couldn't possibly verify as having happened even if it were significant enough to report or remember. I agree with Lamb on one point: The worth of this "evidence" of Richard's intent to seize the throne is exactly nothing.

At the time of the Protectorate, there was certainly a lot of confusion and speculation, but none of it gives us any clue as to Richard's real motives and intentions. But this ostensible conversation occurs before the Protectorate came into being at a time when Richard had not yet heard of his brother's death and was far away at Middleham. What would Pottier, if he were really Gloucester's man, be doing in London at this time? It's utter nonsense and sheer invention.

Carol

Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):

Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors.  William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.

In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235  there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1).  You can find it on Google Books here:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c2%a0

It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.

Dorothea





________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


 
Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:

http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm

And this here's the text in question:

"Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
speak it of naught."

This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.

So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"

Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."

The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?

Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."

My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.

I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."

Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?

If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."

If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?

I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."

--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
>
> Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors.  William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
>
> In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235  there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1).  You can find it on Google Books here:
>
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%82%c2%a0
>
> It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
>
> Dorothea
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
>
> http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
>
> And this here's the text in question:
>
> "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> speak it of naught."
>
> This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
>
> So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
>
> Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
>
> The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."

My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.

I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."

Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?

If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."

If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?

I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."

--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
>
> Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors. William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
>
> In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235 there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1). You can find it on Google Books here:
>
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%82
>
> It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
>
> Dorothea
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
> Â
> Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
>
> http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
>
> And this here's the text in question:
>
> "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> speak it of naught."
>
> This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
>
> So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
>
> Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
>
> The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, indeed, an excellent point, thank you. There I go again, thinking the Church conveyed sainthood on people who, you know, actually did something to deserve it. I fear I shall never make a scholar; I pink-cloud practically everything.

Still and all... Sir Thomas not only mentions this singular prediction, he tells us where we can find Pottier. I'm wondering if that was his way of drawing attention to the idea of followup without access to great big cartoon neon arrows he could point at the text.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."
>
> My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.
>
> I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."
>
> Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?
>
> If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."
>
> If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?
>
> I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."
>
> --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> >
> > Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
> >
> > Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors. William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
> >
> > In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235 there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1). You can find it on Google Books here:
> >
> > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%82
> >
> > It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
> >
> > Dorothea
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> > Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
> >
> > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> >
> > And this here's the text in question:
> >
> > "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> > the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> > long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> > dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> > with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> > King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> > 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> > cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> > toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> > otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> > speak it of naught."
> >
> > This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
> >
> > So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
> >
> > Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
> >
> > The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
completely.
>
>
> Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion.


The more you read about More (sorry) the more his complexity is revealed and, in my opinion, the less admirable he becomes. He had a great press agent -- himself -- and publicist -- his son-in-law, the biographer and publisher William Roper.

Katy

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> Annette


I think he did perform miracles -- the miracle being that he managed to gain the reputation (much of it posthumous, granted) of being so devout and honest and admirable.

I think the bedrock of More's personality is that he desperately wanted to be famous and admired. Opposing King Henry's religious machinations provided him the opportunity to be not only famous but historically famous. He had to work hard to get himself executed, but it gave him the opportunity to become a martyr.

Katy

I don't have a clue was to why More wrote his spurious piece on Richard but he did. If Morton was behind it I cannot understand why More who was supposed to be brainy got taken in by this utter creep. I couldnt give a damn he got the chop either.
Eileen

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> > Annette
>
>
> I think he did perform miracles -- the miracle being that he managed to gain the reputation (much of it posthumous, granted) of being so devout and honest and admirable.
>
> I think the bedrock of More's personality is that he desperately wanted to be famous and admired. Opposing King Henry's religious machinations provided him the opportunity to be not only famous but historically famous. He had to work hard to get himself executed, but it gave him the opportunity to become a martyr.
>
> Katy
>

Being in the Church does not make you a good person......in fact the Church is full of hypocrites...and worse.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I don't have a clue was to why More wrote his spurious piece on Richard but he did. If Morton was behind it I cannot understand why More who was supposed to be brainy got taken in by this utter creep. I couldnt give a damn he got the chop either.
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> > > Annette
> >
> >
> > I think he did perform miracles -- the miracle being that he managed to gain the reputation (much of it posthumous, granted) of being so devout and honest and admirable.
> >
> > I think the bedrock of More's personality is that he desperately wanted to be famous and admired. Opposing King Henry's religious machinations provided him the opportunity to be not only famous but historically famous. He had to work hard to get himself executed, but it gave him the opportunity to become a martyr.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). So I shall simply reiterate my belief that he was writing not 'history', i.e. a chronicle of things that happened, but 'dramatized satirical literature' -- like "Utopia" but dealing with the topic of (presumably) ambition and tyranny. Since it was apparently almost impossible for More to have an after-dinner conversation without every comment dripping with irony or sardonic wit, his contemporaries knew precisely in what vein he would have intended his opus to be read. I've never heard that either of the Henries had anything to do with prompting it, on the contrary, the antiquaries of the early 17th century who had seen and/or knew about John Morton's anti-Richard tract said openly that it had come into More's hands and that he had based his "Richard III" on it (which More would probably have entitled something like "The Tyrant" if he'd ever finished it). This isn't recognized by the orthodox biographers (Ross, Hicks, etc) because they don't stray into the 17th century, just as they don't stray into foreign territory like Portugal: probably because their research is done for them by students, researchers, etc, whose horizons are necessarily limited to whatever project they are asked to look up.

More seems to have approached dramatization exactly like Shakespeare, i.e. to add verisimilitude you include people and things that your audience will recognize and relate to. What roles you give them, however, are entirely up to you. Falstaff is an obvious example in Shakespeare. In More an excellent one is 'Mistress Shore', a figure for him purely to moralize upon, whom, if he had really been writing history, he could have asked to provide the (attributed) low-down on any amount of stuff that went on, some of it in her actual presence, in the very years his drama encompassed. Just so with Mistlebrook and Pottier, names of real people his father might well have mentioned in the past, given roles by More foreshadowing 'doom to come', a common literary device. It's just like the 'go-between' role that More assigns to Catesby - preposterous that an employee like Catesby should have been asked by Richard to trot round to Hastings and ask him "does the Protector have your support for a power-grab?" to which the innocent dupe Hastings replies "over my dead body", and hey presto, Richard condemns himself (supposedly) out of his own mouth.

We have many talented fiction writers on our forum, and I'm sure they'll agree that authors often find the name of a person who actually lived at the time, and assign that person a fictitious role. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Impossible to know for sure, but it helps to look at what the 17th-century dudes said.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



Oh, indeed, an excellent point, thank you. There I go again, thinking the Church conveyed sainthood on people who, you know, actually did something to deserve it. I fear I shall never make a scholar; I pink-cloud practically everything.

Still and all... Sir Thomas not only mentions this singular prediction, he tells us where we can find Pottier. I'm wondering if that was his way of drawing attention to the idea of followup without access to great big cartoon neon arrows he could point at the text.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."
>
> My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.
>
> I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."
>
> Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?
>
> If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."
>
> If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?
>
> I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."
>
> --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> >
> > Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
> >
> > Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors. William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
> >
> > In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235 there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1). You can find it on Google Books here:
> >
> > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%82
> >
> > It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
> >
> > Dorothea
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> > Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
> >
> > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> >
> > And this here's the text in question:
> >
> > "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> > the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> > long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> > dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> > with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> > King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> > 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> > cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> > toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> > otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> > speak it of naught."
> >
> > This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
> >
> > So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
> >
> > Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
> >
> > The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You won't offend me Annette...:0)
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). So I shall simply reiterate my belief that he was writing not 'history', i.e. a chronicle of things that happened, but 'dramatized satirical literature' -- like "Utopia" but dealing with the topic of (presumably) ambition and tyranny. Since it was apparently almost impossible for More to have an after-dinner conversation without every comment dripping with irony or sardonic wit, his contemporaries knew precisely in what vein he would have intended his opus to be read. I've never heard that either of the Henries had anything to do with prompting it, on the contrary, the antiquaries of the early 17th century who had seen and/or knew about John Morton's anti-Richard tract said openly that it had come into More's hands and that he had based his "Richard III" on it (which More would probably have entitled something like "The Tyrant" if he'd ever finished it). This isn't recognized by the orthodox biographers (Ross, Hicks, etc) because they don't stray into the 17th century, just as they don't stray into foreign territory like Portugal: probably because their research is done for them by students, researchers, etc, whose horizons are necessarily limited to whatever project they are asked to look up.
>
> More seems to have approached dramatization exactly like Shakespeare, i.e. to add verisimilitude you include people and things that your audience will recognize and relate to. What roles you give them, however, are entirely up to you. Falstaff is an obvious example in Shakespeare. In More an excellent one is 'Mistress Shore', a figure for him purely to moralize upon, whom, if he had really been writing history, he could have asked to provide the (attributed) low-down on any amount of stuff that went on, some of it in her actual presence, in the very years his drama encompassed. Just so with Mistlebrook and Pottier, names of real people his father might well have mentioned in the past, given roles by More foreshadowing 'doom to come', a common literary device. It's just like the 'go-between' role that More assigns to Catesby - preposterous that an employee like Catesby should have been asked by Richard to trot round to Hastings and ask him "does the Protector have your support for a power-grab?" to which the innocent dupe Hastings replies "over my dead body", and hey presto, Richard condemns himself (supposedly) out of his own mouth.
>
> We have many talented fiction writers on our forum, and I'm sure they'll agree that authors often find the name of a person who actually lived at the time, and assign that person a fictitious role. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Impossible to know for sure, but it helps to look at what the 17th-century dudes said.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> Oh, indeed, an excellent point, thank you. There I go again, thinking the Church conveyed sainthood on people who, you know, actually did something to deserve it. I fear I shall never make a scholar; I pink-cloud practically everything.
>
> Still and all... Sir Thomas not only mentions this singular prediction, he tells us where we can find Pottier. I'm wondering if that was his way of drawing attention to the idea of followup without access to great big cartoon neon arrows he could point at the text.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> > Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."
> >
> > My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.
> >
> > I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."
> >
> > Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?
> >
> > If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."
> >
> > If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?
> >
> > I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."
> >
> > --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
> > >
> > > Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors. William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
> > >
> > > In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235 there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1). You can find it on Google Books here:
> > >
> > > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%82
> > >
> > > It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
> > >
> > > Dorothea
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> > > Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
> > >
> > > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> > >
> > > And this here's the text in question:
> > >
> > > "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> > > the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> > > long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> > > dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> > > with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> > > King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> > > 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> > > cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> > > toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> > > otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> > > speak it of naught."
> > >
> > > This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
> > >
> > > So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
> > >
> > > Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
> > >
> > > The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dorothea Preis wrote:
>
> Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
>
> Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors.  William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
>
> In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235  there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1).  You can find it on Google Books here:
>
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%82%c2%a0
>
> It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
>
> Dorothea

Carol responds:

Thanks for the link, but note the author, Pollard, who essentially takes More at his word. (Horrox is more objective; does she comment on this scene in More or just identify one of the participants?) Note that Pollard actually believes that Forrest and Dighton murdered the "princes" as the agents of the chief murderer, Sir James Tyrell. If we believe Pollard, *both* of these men were connected with Richard, which somehow makes this information authentic. But as I said before, any prediction that Richard would become king made before Richard even knew that his brother was dead and while he was at Middleham is utter nonsense. Possibly More dug up these names from old records and invented the conversation, just as he invented the whole murder scene(later admitting that it was just one of many possibilities and that the boys might even have escaped the Tower alive).

If More used the names of living people in his invented conversations, as opposed to dead people like the already framed Sir James Tyrell, his choice not to publish his manuscript becomes even more understandable.

Carol

Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
 
Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

 
I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
>
>

It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


 
Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
 
Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

 
I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
>
>

He reminds me so much of someone..I better not say as although this person is now dead it might not be appropriate ....Eileen





--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
>  
> Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>  
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm not offended either.

I did yesterday a bit more snooping around and came across another mention of a Richard Potyer.  In the Wells Chapter Acts he is mentioned for 10 April 1494 as the proctor of Master Thomas Barowe (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67304).  Thomas Barowe in turn was closely associated to Richard and was his master
of the rolls and keeper of the great seal.  In 1495 he gave the extravagant
amount of £240 to the rebuilding of Great St Mary, Cambridge,  and for masses, prayers and
ceremonies in honour of King Richard III and Dr Thomas Barowe  who were to be
enrolled in the list of the university's benefactors [Christopher Brooke, Urban
church and university church:  Great St
Mary's from its origins to 1523', in:  John Binns & Peter Meadows, Great
St Mary's, Cambridge University's Church, Cambridge, 2000, pp.7-24.  ISBN 0521775027].

Possibly Pottyer was still well-known as being associated to Barowe and was therefore for More an ideal candidate to show Richard's evil intent?

Regards,

Dorothea



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


 
I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). So I shall simply reiterate my belief that he was writing not 'history', i.e. a chronicle of things that happened, but 'dramatized satirical literature' -- like "Utopia" but dealing with the topic of (presumably) ambition and tyranny. Since it was apparently almost impossible for More to have an after-dinner conversation without every comment dripping with irony or sardonic wit, his contemporaries knew precisely in what vein he would have intended his opus to be read. I've never heard that either of the Henries had anything to do with prompting it, on the contrary, the antiquaries of the early 17th century who had seen and/or knew about John Morton's anti-Richard tract said openly that it had come into More's hands and that he had based his "Richard III" on it (which More would probably have entitled something like "The Tyrant" if he'd ever finished it).
This isn't recognized by the orthodox biographers (Ross, Hicks, etc) because they don't stray into the 17th century, just as they don't stray into foreign territory like Portugal: probably because their research is done for them by students, researchers, etc, whose horizons are necessarily limited to whatever project they are asked to look up.

More seems to have approached dramatization exactly like Shakespeare, i.e. to add verisimilitude you include people and things that your audience will recognize and relate to. What roles you give them, however, are entirely up to you. Falstaff is an obvious example in Shakespeare. In More an excellent one is 'Mistress Shore', a figure for him purely to moralize upon, whom, if he had really been writing history, he could have asked to provide the (attributed) low-down on any amount of stuff that went on, some of it in her actual presence, in the very years his drama encompassed. Just so with Mistlebrook and Pottier, names of real people his father might well have mentioned in the past, given roles by More foreshadowing 'doom to come', a common literary device. It's just like the 'go-between' role that More assigns to Catesby - preposterous that an employee like Catesby should have been asked by Richard to trot round to Hastings and ask him "does the
Protector have your support for a power-grab?" to which the innocent dupe Hastings replies "over my dead body", and hey presto, Richard condemns himself (supposedly) out of his own mouth.

We have many talented fiction writers on our forum, and I'm sure they'll agree that authors often find the name of a person who actually lived at the time, and assign that person a fictitious role. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Impossible to know for sure, but it helps to look at what the 17th-century dudes said.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Oh, indeed, an excellent point, thank you. There I go again, thinking the Church conveyed sainthood on people who, you know, actually did something to deserve it. I fear I shall never make a scholar; I pink-cloud practically everything.

Still and all... Sir Thomas not only mentions this singular prediction, he tells us where we can find Pottier. I'm wondering if that was his way of drawing attention to the idea of followup without access to great big cartoon neon arrows he could point at the text.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."
>
> My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in
Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.
>
> I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."
>
> Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?
>
> If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."
>
> If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?
>
> I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."
>
> --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> >
> > Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
> >
> > Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors. William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
> >
> > In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235 there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1). You can find it on Google Books here:
> >
> > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%82
> >
> > It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
> >
> > Dorothea
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> > Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
> >
> > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> >
> > And this here's the text in question:
> >
> > "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> > the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> > long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> > dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> > with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> > King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> > 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> > cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> > toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> > otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> > speak it of naught."
> >
> > This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
> >
> > So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
> >
> > Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
> >
> > The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Grinning.] Yeah, it's similar to the cinematic notion of the "cameo", in which a noted personage appears as him/herself in a brief walk-on, much the same way that I might, for example, have a thrilling Western in which, just before the big gunfight, say, Prof. Ross or Prof. Hicks would come stumbling plastered out of the saloon, trip over the boardwalk, and pratfall face-first into a cowflop.

More does sound a right jerk, doesn't he? So Saint-in-Name-Only Sir Thomas wasn't writing to spec on a Henry Studios for Character Assassination script... but I STILL have that question of why he produced and hung on to so many copies of that damn "History". He appears at least capable of telling a goose from a capon, so I'm wondering if he might not have gotten into the project and thought, "Meseemeth the perch are not entirely fresh from the fishmonger's, here."

If only he'd used the stupid thing to light the fire in his study, a page at a time. Then Shakespeare could have worked on "The Tragicall History of King Arthur" instead. Still and all, justice deferred is better than no justice at all, and it warms my heart to see a group of smart, dedicated people passionate about the defense of a man who died half a millennium ago, because the passage of time mitigates only the memory and not the wrong.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). So I shall simply reiterate my belief that he was writing not 'history', i.e. a chronicle of things that happened, but 'dramatized satirical literature' -- like "Utopia" but dealing with the topic of (presumably) ambition and tyranny. Since it was apparently almost impossible for More to have an after-dinner conversation without every comment dripping with irony or sardonic wit, his contemporaries knew precisely in what vein he would have intended his opus to be read. I've never heard that either of the Henries had anything to do with prompting it, on the contrary, the antiquaries of the early 17th century who had seen and/or knew about John Morton's anti-Richard tract said openly that it had come into More's hands and that he had based his "Richard III" on it (which More would probably have entitled something like "The Tyrant" if he'd ever finished it). This isn't recognized by the orthodox biographers (Ross, Hicks, etc) because they don't stray into the 17th century, just as they don't stray into foreign territory like Portugal: probably because their research is done for them by students, researchers, etc, whose horizons are necessarily limited to whatever project they are asked to look up.
>
> More seems to have approached dramatization exactly like Shakespeare, i.e. to add verisimilitude you include people and things that your audience will recognize and relate to. What roles you give them, however, are entirely up to you. Falstaff is an obvious example in Shakespeare. In More an excellent one is 'Mistress Shore', a figure for him purely to moralize upon, whom, if he had really been writing history, he could have asked to provide the (attributed) low-down on any amount of stuff that went on, some of it in her actual presence, in the very years his drama encompassed. Just so with Mistlebrook and Pottier, names of real people his father might well have mentioned in the past, given roles by More foreshadowing 'doom to come', a common literary device. It's just like the 'go-between' role that More assigns to Catesby - preposterous that an employee like Catesby should have been asked by Richard to trot round to Hastings and ask him "does the Protector have your support for a power-grab?" to which the innocent dupe Hastings replies "over my dead body", and hey presto, Richard condemns himself (supposedly) out of his own mouth.
>
> We have many talented fiction writers on our forum, and I'm sure they'll agree that authors often find the name of a person who actually lived at the time, and assign that person a fictitious role. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Impossible to know for sure, but it helps to look at what the 17th-century dudes said.
> Regards, Annette

He did but speak the words Robert Bolt provided--although, admittedly, he spoke them well and gravely--and could that guy ever draw eyes to his shapely hose-clad nether limbs! Truly, if one seeketh after miracle in Sir Thomas, one need direct one's gaze no farther afield than the well-molded calves of one Scofield.

Heston's calves weren't half so nice. It makes me wonder how he got all those people to follow him into the Red Sea.

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
>  
> Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>  
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oooh... thanks for finding this! Can y'all in the land of Merrie Olde tell me if it's significant that this mention is in the *Wells* Chapter Acts? As in, perhaps, Bishop-of-Bath-and-?

--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not offended either.
>
> I did yesterday a bit more snooping around and came across another mention of a Richard Potyer.  In the Wells Chapter Acts he is mentioned for 10 April 1494 as the proctor of Master Thomas Barowe (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67304).  Thomas Barowe in turn was closely associated to Richard and was his master
> of the rolls and keeper of the great seal.  In 1495 he gave the extravagant
> amount of £240 to the rebuilding of Great St Mary, Cambridge,  and for “masses, prayers and
> ceremonies in honour of King Richard III and Dr Thomas Barowe â€" who were to be
> enrolled in the list of the university’s benefactors” [Christopher Brooke, ‘Urban
> church and university church:  Great St
> Mary's from its origins to 1523', in:  John Binns & Peter Meadows, Great
> St Mary's, Cambridge University's Church, Cambridge, 2000, pp.7-24.  ISBN 0521775027].
>
> Possibly Pottyer was still well-known as being associated to Barowe and was therefore for More an ideal candidate to show Richard's evil intent?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dorothea
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 3:09 AM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). So I shall simply reiterate my belief that he was writing not 'history', i.e. a chronicle of things that happened, but 'dramatized satirical literature' -- like "Utopia" but dealing with the topic of (presumably) ambition and tyranny. Since it was apparently almost impossible for More to have an after-dinner conversation without every comment dripping with irony or sardonic wit, his contemporaries knew precisely in what vein he would have intended his opus to be read. I've never heard that either of the Henries had anything to do with prompting it, on the contrary, the antiquaries of the early 17th century who had seen and/or knew about John Morton's anti-Richard tract said openly that it had come into More's hands and that he had based his "Richard III" on it (which More would probably have entitled something like "The Tyrant" if he'd ever finished it).
> This isn't recognized by the orthodox biographers (Ross, Hicks, etc) because they don't stray into the 17th century, just as they don't stray into foreign territory like Portugal: probably because their research is done for them by students, researchers, etc, whose horizons are necessarily limited to whatever project they are asked to look up.
>
> More seems to have approached dramatization exactly like Shakespeare, i.e. to add verisimilitude you include people and things that your audience will recognize and relate to. What roles you give them, however, are entirely up to you. Falstaff is an obvious example in Shakespeare. In More an excellent one is 'Mistress Shore', a figure for him purely to moralize upon, whom, if he had really been writing history, he could have asked to provide the (attributed) low-down on any amount of stuff that went on, some of it in her actual presence, in the very years his drama encompassed. Just so with Mistlebrook and Pottier, names of real people his father might well have mentioned in the past, given roles by More foreshadowing 'doom to come', a common literary device. It's just like the 'go-between' role that More assigns to Catesby - preposterous that an employee like Catesby should have been asked by Richard to trot round to Hastings and ask him "does the
> Protector have your support for a power-grab?" to which the innocent dupe Hastings replies "over my dead body", and hey presto, Richard condemns himself (supposedly) out of his own mouth.
>
> We have many talented fiction writers on our forum, and I'm sure they'll agree that authors often find the name of a person who actually lived at the time, and assign that person a fictitious role. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Impossible to know for sure, but it helps to look at what the 17th-century dudes said.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Oh, indeed, an excellent point, thank you. There I go again, thinking the Church conveyed sainthood on people who, you know, actually did something to deserve it. I fear I shall never make a scholar; I pink-cloud practically everything.
>
> Still and all... Sir Thomas not only mentions this singular prediction, he tells us where we can find Pottier. I'm wondering if that was his way of drawing attention to the idea of followup without access to great big cartoon neon arrows he could point at the text.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> > Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."
> >
> > My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in
> Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.
> >
> > I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."
> >
> > Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?
> >
> > If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."
> >
> > If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?
> >
> > I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."
> >
> > --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
> > >
> > > Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors. William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
> > >
> > > In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235 there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1). You can find it on Google Books here:
> > >
> > > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%83%c2%82
> > >
> > > It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
> > >
> > > Dorothea
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> > > Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
> > >
> > > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> > >
> > > And this here's the text in question:
> > >
> > > "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> > > the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> > > long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> > > dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> > > with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> > > King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> > > 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> > > cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> > > toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> > > otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> > > speak it of naught."
> > >
> > > This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
> > >
> > > So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
> > >
> > > Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
> > >
> > > The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
>  
> Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>  
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship
and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
> >  
> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >  
> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

"Annette Carson" wrote:
>
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-) <snip>

Carol responds:

Around here? I doubt it. <Smile> We should take a poll (I don't mean responses to this post but a real poll if whoever is in charge of this website could set one up. Is More's "Richard III" A) history B) a serious attempt at history with an accidental Tudor bias C) propaganda D) a parable or moral fable E) a dramatic satire F) some combination of these elements G) something else (please specify).

Of course, the person setting up the poll could reword the categories or add new ones as he or she liked. Or can we even do polls on this site. I don't see it as an option.

Carol

do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)


--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To:
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM
















 









Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?



--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: "" <>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> >  

> > Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)

> >  

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To:

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >  

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)


--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To:
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM
















 









Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?



--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: "" <>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> >  

> > Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)

> >  

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To:

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >  

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

He played both. He played More in a 1988 television version of "A Man
for All Seasons."

Gilda



On Sep 29, 2012, at 6:06 PM, EileenB wrote:

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....
>
> --- In , david rayner
> <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>>
>> It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>> To: "" <
>> >
>> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
>> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More:
>> Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)
>> Â
>> Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the
>> More-worship....
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
>> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More:
>> Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>>
>> Â
>> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More,
>> I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

How you guys dig up this stuff fills me with awe. Fascinating.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dorothea Preis
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



I'm not offended either.

I did yesterday a bit more snooping around and came across another mention of a Richard Potyer. In the Wells Chapter Acts he is mentioned for 10 April 1494 as the proctor of Master Thomas Barowe (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67304). Thomas Barowe in turn was closely associated to Richard and was his master
of the rolls and keeper of the great seal. In 1495 he gave the extravagant
amount of £240 to the rebuilding of Great St Mary, Cambridge, and for masses, prayers and
ceremonies in honour of King Richard III and Dr Thomas Barowe  who were to be
enrolled in the list of the university's benefactors [Christopher Brooke, Urban
church and university church: Great St
Mary's from its origins to 1523', in: John Binns & Peter Meadows, Great
St Mary's, Cambridge University's Church, Cambridge, 2000, pp.7-24. ISBN 0521775027].

Possibly Pottyer was still well-known as being associated to Barowe and was therefore for More an ideal candidate to show Richard's evil intent?

Regards,

Dorothea

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). So I shall simply reiterate my belief that he was writing not 'history', i.e. a chronicle of things that happened, but 'dramatized satirical literature' -- like "Utopia" but dealing with the topic of (presumably) ambition and tyranny. Since it was apparently almost impossible for More to have an after-dinner conversation without every comment dripping with irony or sardonic wit, his contemporaries knew precisely in what vein he would have intended his opus to be read. I've never heard that either of the Henries had anything to do with prompting it, on the contrary, the antiquaries of the early 17th century who had seen and/or knew about John Morton's anti-Richard tract said openly that it had come into More's hands and that he had based his "Richard III" on it (which More would probably have entitled something like "The Tyrant" if he'd ever finished it).
This isn't recognized by the orthodox biographers (Ross, Hicks, etc) because they don't stray into the 17th century, just as they don't stray into foreign territory like Portugal: probably because their research is done for them by students, researchers, etc, whose horizons are necessarily limited to whatever project they are asked to look up.

More seems to have approached dramatization exactly like Shakespeare, i.e. to add verisimilitude you include people and things that your audience will recognize and relate to. What roles you give them, however, are entirely up to you. Falstaff is an obvious example in Shakespeare. In More an excellent one is 'Mistress Shore', a figure for him purely to moralize upon, whom, if he had really been writing history, he could have asked to provide the (attributed) low-down on any amount of stuff that went on, some of it in her actual presence, in the very years his drama encompassed. Just so with Mistlebrook and Pottier, names of real people his father might well have mentioned in the past, given roles by More foreshadowing 'doom to come', a common literary device. It's just like the 'go-between' role that More assigns to Catesby - preposterous that an employee like Catesby should have been asked by Richard to trot round to Hastings and ask him "does the
Protector have your support for a power-grab?" to which the innocent dupe Hastings replies "over my dead body", and hey presto, Richard condemns himself (supposedly) out of his own mouth.

We have many talented fiction writers on our forum, and I'm sure they'll agree that authors often find the name of a person who actually lived at the time, and assign that person a fictitious role. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Impossible to know for sure, but it helps to look at what the 17th-century dudes said.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Oh, indeed, an excellent point, thank you. There I go again, thinking the Church conveyed sainthood on people who, you know, actually did something to deserve it. I fear I shall never make a scholar; I pink-cloud practically everything.

Still and all... Sir Thomas not only mentions this singular prediction, he tells us where we can find Pottier. I'm wondering if that was his way of drawing attention to the idea of followup without access to great big cartoon neon arrows he could point at the text.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."
>
> My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in
Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.
>
> I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."
>
> Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?
>
> If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."
>
> If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?
>
> I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."
>
> --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> >
> > Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
> >
> > Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors. William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
> >
> > In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235 there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1). You can find it on Google Books here:
> >
> > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%82
> >
> > It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
> >
> > Dorothea
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> > Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
> >
> > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> >
> > And this here's the text in question:
> >
> > "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> > the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> > long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> > dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> > with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> > King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> > 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> > cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> > toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> > otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> > speak it of naught."
> >
> > This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
> >
> > So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
> >
> > Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
> >
> > The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Roslyn...I do know something of the Inquisiton....I would prefer not to read up any more than I already know ...too horrific. The more you get to know of religion the more you realise elements of it are quite sick and twisted. More to do with those at the top of the ladder and how they interpreted it I guess.

Having said that...I believe that Cecily Neville (as an example) gained much comfort from her faith with regard to all the tragedy and tribulations she faced in her life.

Eileen

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.
>
> this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
>
> there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)
>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> To:
> Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship
>
> and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....
>
> >
>
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
>
> > > To: "" <>
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
>
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >  
>
> > > Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
>
> > >  
>
> > > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
>
> > >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > From: Annette Carson <email@>
>
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
>
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> > >
>
> > >  
>
> > > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And if THAT isn't the word of an expert...!

I done found another mention of the elusive Mr. Potyer from around that same time:

http://www.exploringsurreyspast.org.uk/GetRecord/SHCOL_258

There's a listing from June 1, 1494, that describes him (if I'm reading this right) as "gent".

There's another one, a transaction in Essex that's indicated as having been from the time of Henry VII:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64483

If you search in your browser for "Potyer", the listing will pop right up. In addition to the casually variable orthography of the time, we may be dealing with the curse of a common name (I have one of those myself and know how it goes). But now I am super curious about this guy. Landowner? Clergyman? Minor nobleman?

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> How you guys dig up this stuff fills me with awe. Fascinating.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dorothea Preis
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> I'm not offended either.
>
> I did yesterday a bit more snooping around and came across another mention of a Richard Potyer. In the Wells Chapter Acts he is mentioned for 10 April 1494 as the proctor of Master Thomas Barowe (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67304). Thomas Barowe in turn was closely associated to Richard and was his master
> of the rolls and keeper of the great seal. In 1495 he gave the extravagant
> amount of £240 to the rebuilding of Great St Mary, Cambridge, and for “masses, prayers and
> ceremonies in honour of King Richard III and Dr Thomas Barowe â€" who were to be
> enrolled in the list of the university’s benefactors” [Christopher Brooke, ‘Urban
> church and university church: Great St
> Mary's from its origins to 1523', in: John Binns & Peter Meadows, Great
> St Mary's, Cambridge University's Church, Cambridge, 2000, pp.7-24. ISBN 0521775027].
>
> Possibly Pottyer was still well-known as being associated to Barowe and was therefore for More an ideal candidate to show Richard's evil intent?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dorothea
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012 3:09 AM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). So I shall simply reiterate my belief that he was writing not 'history', i.e. a chronicle of things that happened, but 'dramatized satirical literature' -- like "Utopia" but dealing with the topic of (presumably) ambition and tyranny. Since it was apparently almost impossible for More to have an after-dinner conversation without every comment dripping with irony or sardonic wit, his contemporaries knew precisely in what vein he would have intended his opus to be read. I've never heard that either of the Henries had anything to do with prompting it, on the contrary, the antiquaries of the early 17th century who had seen and/or knew about John Morton's anti-Richard tract said openly that it had come into More's hands and that he had based his "Richard III" on it (which More would probably have entitled something like "The Tyrant" if he'd ever finished it).
> This isn't recognized by the orthodox biographers (Ross, Hicks, etc) because they don't stray into the 17th century, just as they don't stray into foreign territory like Portugal: probably because their research is done for them by students, researchers, etc, whose horizons are necessarily limited to whatever project they are asked to look up.
>
> More seems to have approached dramatization exactly like Shakespeare, i.e. to add verisimilitude you include people and things that your audience will recognize and relate to. What roles you give them, however, are entirely up to you. Falstaff is an obvious example in Shakespeare. In More an excellent one is 'Mistress Shore', a figure for him purely to moralize upon, whom, if he had really been writing history, he could have asked to provide the (attributed) low-down on any amount of stuff that went on, some of it in her actual presence, in the very years his drama encompassed. Just so with Mistlebrook and Pottier, names of real people his father might well have mentioned in the past, given roles by More foreshadowing 'doom to come', a common literary device. It's just like the 'go-between' role that More assigns to Catesby - preposterous that an employee like Catesby should have been asked by Richard to trot round to Hastings and ask him "does the
> Protector have your support for a power-grab?" to which the innocent dupe Hastings replies "over my dead body", and hey presto, Richard condemns himself (supposedly) out of his own mouth.
>
> We have many talented fiction writers on our forum, and I'm sure they'll agree that authors often find the name of a person who actually lived at the time, and assign that person a fictitious role. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Impossible to know for sure, but it helps to look at what the 17th-century dudes said.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Oh, indeed, an excellent point, thank you. There I go again, thinking the Church conveyed sainthood on people who, you know, actually did something to deserve it. I fear I shall never make a scholar; I pink-cloud practically everything.
>
> Still and all... Sir Thomas not only mentions this singular prediction, he tells us where we can find Pottier. I'm wondering if that was his way of drawing attention to the idea of followup without access to great big cartoon neon arrows he could point at the text.
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure how much reading you've done around Thomas More, but it might be a good idea to get a good biography under your belt, e.g. Richard Marius. You might come to think a little differently about his ethics and conscience. This was one scary guy. Personally I'm not at all sure how he came by his sainthood - I thought one qualification was you had to perform miracles, no?
> > Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, thank you, that *does* shed some light on the matter. Mistlebrook was apparently still alive at the time Sir Thomas was working on his "History" (the text you linked gives the date of his death as 1513), and there's this tantalizing little note that Sir Thomas says in one of the MSS. of the "History" that he got the story from "his father" (Sir Thomas's, maybe?). As the kids say, "Hmmmm."
> >
> > My take on Sir Thomas is both fanciful and speculative, and relies on nothing more substantial than shreds of sniff I get from the "History". I think he got the assignment from the king, "Say, dig up your master Morton's notes on Richard III and whip 'em into shape." I think he started the project with the attitude, "Oh, great, I love history and this is gonna be a fine intellectual exercise!" And then he gets into the records and starts to have some doubts, which soon blossom into, "Holy hell, I can't turn this in--this guy was about a gajillion times better as king than our lot, and if I give them a manuscript to contribute to their postmortem character assassination, it's a sin and a crime!" I think he spent a lot of time putting Henry VIII off--"You know, I was thinking this would be better in Latin... you know, I thought I'd go back to English, more accessible that way... you know, I've run into some snags locating some documents, a storehouse in
> Leeds went up in flames, most unfortunate"--and I think finally he was able to deter Henry completely.
> >
> > I think, moreover, that Sir Thomas crafted the "History" to be covertly what it could not be openly--a coded, hint-filled piece of subversion along the lines of, "Do not believe the King's paid historians and their assessment of pure monstrosity. This information is still available if you look for it, and what it adds up to is that we lost a good king, who might have become a great king, to treachery on the part of those who now hold the throne."
> >
> > Sir Thomas was known to be at the same time smart, ethical, and virtuous. He successfully navigated a career in service to a tyrant for decades, and lost his life on a point of principle because he was unwilling to cut his conscience to fit the season's fashion. I have the suspicion that, the more he found out about the true character and actions of Richard, the more he found himself admiring the man he'd set out to slang. If we, at a remove of half a millennium, find so much to admire about Richard III, how much more might Sir Thomas have uncovered closer in time to the events of Richard's life, when tunking over rocks might have revealed all sorts of things the Tudors would rather not bring to light?
> >
> > If this speculation is accurate, then Sir Thomas becomes, not the paid paper assassin of the Tudors, but Richard's first Tudor-era defender. And I'm thinking that if he threw in this seemingly pointless anecdote, accompanying it with the directed comment, "Well, he wouldn't have said it for nothing," his intent might have been, "Look up this Pottier guy [or the equivalent, like rooting through his papers or perusing his library] and ask him how he knew that, despite the presence of two male heirs of Edward IV, the Duke of Gloucester was going to become the next king."
> >
> > If *that* is an accurate assessment, then my next question would be, were Pottier and the Bishop of Bath and Wells snooker buddies or something?
> >
> > I admit, it's an air castle, but it's built on the naggery at the back of my brain that says, "What we have been told about Richard III is at variance with the original documents... and what we know about Sir Thomas is at variance with the surface-level reading of his "History"."
> >
> > --- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Rosemary Horrox says about a William Mistlebrook (Richard III, A Study of Service, p.211):
> > >
> > > Many of Edward IV's men remained in post under Richard III and, indeed. went on to serve the Tudors. William Mistlebrook, for instance, whom Richard used to seize forfeited chattels in 1483, had been one of Edward IV's auditors in Wales, later became Richard's auditor of the duchy of Lancaster lands there, and finally died at Denbigh in 1492 while travelling in the service of Henry VII.
> > >
> > > In 'Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait' on p. 235 there is an explanation on the Pottier fellow (in Footnote 1). You can find it on Google Books here:
> > >
> > > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h2i7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&lpg=PA235&dq=pottier+Richard+III&source=bl&ots=UblPyx_fWE&sig=HdBqpVL9CtS2_hX6Cf7wdstJ3DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWZmUKiIF4eTiAfiooHYDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pottier%20Richard%20III&f=false%c3%83%c2%82
> > >
> > > It would certainly be interesting to find out more about these guys and their relationship to Richard - maybe another case of Tyrrel, whom Richard according to the sainted More had never met before.
> > >
> > > Dorothea
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 11:19 AM
> > > Subject: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hey, gang. Runnin' through my new-to-me copy of V. S. Lamb's "The Betrayal of Richard III" (reviewlet: socko, stellar, get it if you ain't got it), and I tripped over a weird little meander in Sir Thomas's stream of elegant misdirection. Here's the link to the text:
> > >
> > > http://thomasmorestudies.org/r3concordance/framconc.htm
> > >
> > > And this here's the text in question:
> > >
> > > "Howbeit, this have I by credible information learned: that
> > > the self night in which King Edward died, one Mistlebrook,
> > > long ere morning, came in great haste to the house of one Pottier,
> > > dwelling in Red Cross Street, without Cripplegate; and when he was
> > > with hasty rapping quickly let in, he showed unto Pottier that
> > > King Edward was departed. 'By my troth, man,' quoth Pottier,
> > > 'then will my master, the Duke of Gloucester, be king!' What
> > > cause he had so to think, hard it is to say, whether he, being
> > > toward him, anything knew that he such thing purposed, or
> > > otherwise had any inkling thereof. For he was not likely to
> > > speak it of naught."
> > >
> > > This comes right after the famous passage on Richard protesting George's execution, but even though Richard made a lotta noise and some mighty annoying clatter about it, enh, he probably didn't really mean it 'cause he had his eye on the ol' orb n' scepter, if you get what Sir Thomas means and you probably do. It would make this whole Pottier/Mistlebrook thing easy to miss.
> > >
> > > So I'm reading this morsel presented by the good scholar Lamb, and my immediate thought is, "The *hell*? Who is this Pottier dude and why did he say that?"
> > >
> > > Maybe that's precisely the question Sir Thomas meant his audience to ask. And perhaps his reply would be, "I dunno, you'd have to ask him. Here's his address."
> > >
> > > The verb More uses to describe the way Mistlebrook announced the king's death is "showed", which to me implies a token, which to me further implies that Mistlebrook was somebody in the know, and rather high up in the know, to boot. If somebody of enough influence hotfoots it out of the palace right after the death of the King of England, toting a token that bears unmistakable witness to this fact, and goes directly to someone else's house, that means the someone else was equally important. So what was the inside scoop? Did Pottier maybe, say, just conjecturing here, possibly... know Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).

Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement - I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.

The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.

The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.

I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)

--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To:
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM



Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: "" <>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> > Â

> > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)

> > Â

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To:

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> > Â

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

Nice man.

We know Richard owned vulgate testaments; not so many years earlier, this would have been heretical in itself. Were the "laws" regarding this ever actually rescinded? Or did the "powers that be" just look the other way?

Just curious....
Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


 
Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).

Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement
- I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.

The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.

The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.

I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)

--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To:
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM

Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: "" <>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> > Â

> > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)

> > Â

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To:

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> > Â

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

From: "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...>
//snip//

More does sound a right jerk, doesn't he? So Saint-in-Name-Only Sir Thomas
wasn't writing to spec on a Henry Studios for Character Assassination
script... but I STILL have that question of why he produced and hung on to
so many copies of that damn "History". He appears at least capable of
telling a goose from a capon, so I'm wondering if he might not have gotten
into the project and thought, "Meseemeth the perch are not entirely fresh
from the fishmonger's, here."
//snip//

When I read your question asking why More held onto different copies of his
"History" the first response that came to my mind was: He wasn't certain HOW
he was going to proceed, he liked bits and pieces of what he'd already
written and was trying to figure out some way to amalgamate (?) what he DID
like in the various versions into one, coherent piece. A sort of
16th-century version of "cut-and-paste", I suppose, with the "save" option
being the retention of those copies.
From the little of More that I've encountered, I just don't see him writing
a history that would put his neck in danger, which is what a factual history
of Richard would've done.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it's discovered someday that More
himself started to write an actual history and THEN got diverted into satire
when he saw what he had to work with. I'm sort of surprised noone has ever
done a comparison study of the surviving copies, if only for a degree.
Perhaps there's one floating around the intertubes...

Doug

So...at the end of the day quite a nasty piece of work....Still what can you expect of someone brought up in Morton's household? He was hardly going to turn out a pleasant kind of chap was he...

I wonder if he every witnessed a 'heretic's' burning at the stake? How fortunate for him he met his end by beheading...

Eileen

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).
>
> Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement - I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.
>
> The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.
>
> The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.
>
> I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.
>
> this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
>
> there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)
>
> --- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> To:
> Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM
>
>
>
> Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship
>
> and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....
>
> >
>
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
>
> > > To: "" <>
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
>
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Â
>
> > > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)
>
> > > Â
>
> > > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
>
> > >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > From: Annette Carson <email@>
>
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
>
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> > >
>
> > > Â
>
> > > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dear Annette 



If one is helping to bring out the truth, even in regard to matters which can be the subject of honest debate, rather than just writing an ad hominem screed, it's worth doing, and no one's sensibilities should be offended. I had never read any of this, but then I certainly know less about Thomas More than I know about King Richard III.



I guess my question is  it's not too surprising that it would be aired here, home of the defence of King Richard - why shouldn't this material be well known enough that it be taken into consideration  or even have the pros and cons debated - by the historians who defend More? I suppose it may be said that he could be a stinker in one or two (or a half dozen) areas of his life, and objectively correct about his portrayal of Richard, but putting the whole picture together, it doesn't exactly seem that way, does it?



And, considering all of this  what biography of More would be most worth reading?



Thanks for posting!



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?





Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).

Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement - I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.

The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.

The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.

I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)

--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM

Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> > Â

> > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)

> > Â

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> > Â

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

"Annette Carson" wrote:
<snip>
>
> I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.

Carol responds:

Even faced with the glaring error (or barefaced lie) that Edward IV was fifty-three years, seven months, and five days old when he died when anyone who knows anything about the House of York (including More's intended readers, if any, and, I hope, Marius himself) knows that Edward was a few weeks short of forty-one when he died? Surely, this statement was intended to indicate that everything which followed was equally false? It looks to me as if Marius, like so many others, has a case of willful blindness when it comes to More's "Richard III."

On a side note, I watched CBS's "Sunday Morning" hoping for an apology or a retraction regarding Philippa Langley's remarks about Richard being taken out of context, but not so much as a mention of her or Richard. Of course, it's too soon to air that segment if they intend to do it properly (a serious and objective interview with key members of the Society), but my hopes aren't high. Annette, have you heard anything from Philippa on the matter?

Carol

Ugh, what an awful person. Is this really the best the Church could beatify?

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).
>
> Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement - I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.
>
> The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.
>
> The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.
>
> I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
> do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.
>
> this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
>
> there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)
>
> --- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> To:
> Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM
>
>
>
> Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship
>
> and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....
>
> >
>
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
>
> > > To: "" <>
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
>
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Â
>
> > > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)
>
> > > Â
>
> > > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
>
> > >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > From: Annette Carson <email@>
>
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
>
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> > >
>
> > > Â
>
> > > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I just had a thought about this. The whole thing about vulgate might be reminiscent of the discussion we just had about the use of the term/concept "gay" a couple days ago: vulgate was indeed one step above witchcraft earlier in the century, but in the york/Tudor period might not have been such a huge deal until Henry VIII got his hose in a twist over it. The historical record indicates that Richard bumped into William Caxton from time to time and they seem to have had a cordial relationship. Could be that they shared an interest in the then-pathbreaking technology of printing, and were happy to take it in directions a later, more paranoid time would consider heretical.

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Nice man.
>
> We know Richard owned vulgate testaments; not so many years earlier, this would have been heretical in itself. Were the "laws" regarding this ever actually rescinded? Or did the "powers that be" just look the other way?
>
> Just curious....
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).
>
> Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement
> - I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.
>
> The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.
>
> The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.
>
> I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.
>
> this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
>
> there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)
>
> --- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> To:
> Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM
>
> Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship
>
> and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....
>
> >
>
> > --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
>
> > > To: "" <>
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
>
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Â
>
> > > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)
>
> > > Â
>
> > > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
>
> > >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > From: Annette Carson <email@>
>
> > > To:
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
>
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> > >
>
> > > Â
>
> > > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Be an interesting experiment to paste 'em into a series of parallel Web windows so's you could jump from one to the next, wouldn't it?

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...>
> //snip//
>
> More does sound a right jerk, doesn't he? So Saint-in-Name-Only Sir Thomas
> wasn't writing to spec on a Henry Studios for Character Assassination
> script... but I STILL have that question of why he produced and hung on to
> so many copies of that damn "History". He appears at least capable of
> telling a goose from a capon, so I'm wondering if he might not have gotten
> into the project and thought, "Meseemeth the perch are not entirely fresh
> from the fishmonger's, here."
> //snip//
>
> When I read your question asking why More held onto different copies of his
> "History" the first response that came to my mind was: He wasn't certain HOW
> he was going to proceed, he liked bits and pieces of what he'd already
> written and was trying to figure out some way to amalgamate (?) what he DID
> like in the various versions into one, coherent piece. A sort of
> 16th-century version of "cut-and-paste", I suppose, with the "save" option
> being the retention of those copies.
> From the little of More that I've encountered, I just don't see him writing
> a history that would put his neck in danger, which is what a factual history
> of Richard would've done.
> Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it's discovered someday that More
> himself started to write an actual history and THEN got diverted into satire
> when he saw what he had to work with. I'm sort of surprised noone has ever
> done a comparison study of the surviving copies, if only for a degree.
> Perhaps there's one floating around the intertubes...
>
> Doug
>

Judy, you could own a translation, but only by express permission of the Church.
Cheers, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



Nice man.

We know Richard owned vulgate testaments; not so many years earlier, this would have been heretical in itself. Were the "laws" regarding this ever actually rescinded? Or did the "powers that be" just look the other way?

Just curious....
Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).

Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement
- I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.

The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.

The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.

I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)

--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To:
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM

Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: "" <>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> > Â

> > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)

> > Â

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To:

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> > Â

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

I believe it was OK to own a Bible, even one in English, as long as you had the approval of your Bishop. This approval was of course not widely given, mostly restricted to persons of eminence. Anne of Bohemia for example had an English Bible (and I think one in another language, perhaps German) and was actually praised for it by Archbishop Arundel in her funeral oration.

The thing was, the Church liked to keep control.

Brian W.

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I just had a thought about this. The whole thing about vulgate might be reminiscent of the discussion we just had about the use of the term/concept "gay" a couple days ago: vulgate was indeed one step above witchcraft earlier in the century, but in the york/Tudor period might not have been such a huge deal until Henry VIII got his hose in a twist over it. The historical record indicates that Richard bumped into William Caxton from time to time and they seem to have had a cordial relationship. Could be that they shared an interest in the then-pathbreaking technology of printing, and were happy to take it in directions a later, more paranoid time would consider heretical.
>
>

Who reminds you - More or Heston?  :-)  Of course Heston is dead too now



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:57
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

 
He reminds me so much of someone..I better not say as although this person is now dead it might not be appropriate ....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
>  
> Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
>
> ________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>  
> I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wonder if Richard ever bothered with obtaining his "owner's permit." ;-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


 
Judy, you could own a translation, but only by express permission of the Church.
Cheers, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Nice man.

We know Richard owned vulgate testaments; not so many years earlier, this would have been heretical in itself. Were the "laws" regarding this ever actually rescinded? Or did the "powers that be" just look the other way?

Just curious....
Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).

Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement
- I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.

The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.

The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.

I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)

--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To:
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM

Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: "" <>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> > Â

> > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)

> > Â

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To:

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> > Â

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

Lol..I might as well say Liz...More reminds me of another holier than thou person..Lord Longford...He campaigned strenuously for years to get Myra Hyndley released which was bad enough but then told the mother of a murdered child that she would not get to heaven because she would not forgive the murderers....A dangerous idiot...Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Who reminds you - More or Heston?  :-)  Of course Heston is dead too now
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:57
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>  
> He reminds me so much of someone..I better not say as although this person is now dead it might not be appropriate ....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
> >  
> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >  
> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her

[snip]

I can't resist piling on with further info on More: He made a big deal about his desire to join the Carthusian order, but then went on a weekend visit to an older colleague and came home pledge to marry one of his daughters. For the rest of the unfortunate woman's life More frequently told the story of how he had actually wanted to marry her younger sister, but he nobly went with Jane because she was the oldest and he didn't want to leave her father stuck with her while her more attractive younger sisters were taken.

(Most of More's anecdotes served the purpose of showing himself in a good light. Similarly, he wore a hair shirt, but he made sure that the hem of it always peeped out, so he'd get credit for his humble piety.)

He bred Jane to death with five babies in six years. Then, according to the Church, he was free to take those holy orders he said he was so drawn to. Instead, he married a rich widow as quickly as possible. A man could go into holy orders when he had been widowed once, but not after he had had two wives. Whew -- Thomas once again had escaped having to put his money where his mouth was, so to speak.

Katy

Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.

I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.

I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.

Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
Yours, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



Dear Annette 

If one is helping to bring out the truth, even in regard to matters which can be the subject of honest debate, rather than just writing an ad hominem screed, it's worth doing, and no one's sensibilities should be offended. I had never read any of this, but then I certainly know less about Thomas More than I know about King Richard III.

I guess my question is  it's not too surprising that it would be aired here, home of the defence of King Richard - why shouldn't this material be well known enough that it be taken into consideration  or even have the pros and cons debated - by the historians who defend More? I suppose it may be said that he could be a stinker in one or two (or a half dozen) areas of his life, and objectively correct about his portrayal of Richard, but putting the whole picture together, it doesn't exactly seem that way, does it?

And, considering all of this  what biography of More would be most worth reading?

Thanks for posting!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).

Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement - I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.

The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.

The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.

I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)

--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM

Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> > Â

> > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)

> > Â

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> > Â

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

God, he sounds appalling.  Isn't it funny how people can gain - or lose - a reputation when it bears little resemblance to what they were really like?
 

________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 18:03
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

 


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her

[snip]

I can't resist piling on with further info on More: He made a big deal about his desire to join the Carthusian order, but then went on a weekend visit to an older colleague and came home pledge to marry one of his daughters. For the rest of the unfortunate woman's life More frequently told the story of how he had actually wanted to marry her younger sister, but he nobly went with Jane because she was the oldest and he didn't want to leave her father stuck with her while her more attractive younger sisters were taken.

(Most of More's anecdotes served the purpose of showing himself in a good light. Similarly, he wore a hair shirt, but he made sure that the hem of it always peeped out, so he'd get credit for his humble piety.)

He bred Jane to death with five babies in six years. Then, according to the Church, he was free to take those holy orders he said he was so drawn to. Instead, he married a rich widow as quickly as possible. A man could go into holy orders when he had been widowed once, but not after he had had two wives. Whew -- Thomas once again had escaped having to put his money where his mouth was, so to speak.

Katy

Hi, Annette 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pro-More lobbyists can't be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully in all regards.

I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today from failing to do their due diligence, as the saying goes. I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. But surely that is practically impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don't have actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In which case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.



Of course that's just my tentative opinion. J



Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?



Johanne







From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?





Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.

I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.

I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.

Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
Yours, Annette

SNIP
< I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. >
 
 
Mr Hicks has obviously never heard of "innocent until proven guilty"
 
 

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 21:36
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

 
Hi, Annette 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pro-More lobbyists can't be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully in all regards.

I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today from failing to do their due diligence, as the saying goes. I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. But surely that is practically impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don't have actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In which
case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.

Of course that's just my tentative opinion. J

Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?

Johanne

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.

I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.

I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.

Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
Yours, Annette

Surely the onus is on Hick's to prove that Richard is guilty? After all he is the historian...eileen







--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> SNIP
> < I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that “Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent.” >
>  
>  
> Mr Hicks has obviously never heard of "innocent until proven guilty"
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 21:36
> Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>  
> Hi, Annette â€"
>
> If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the pro-More lobbyists can’t be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully in all regards.
>
> I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today from failing to do their “due diligence,” as the saying goes. I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that “Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent.” But surely that is practically impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don’t have actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In which
> case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.
>
> Of course that’s just my tentative opinion. J
>
> Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?
>
> Johanne
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.
>
> I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.
>
> I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.
>
> Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
> Yours, Annette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree with you, but I presume Hicks thinks that More and he have already done that. J



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 6:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?





Surely the onus is on Hick's to prove that Richard is guilty? After all he is the historian...eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> SNIP
> < I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that â¬SRicardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent.⬝ >
> Â
> Â
> Mr Hicks has obviously never heard of "innocent until proven guilty"
> Â
> Â
>

Sorry, Johanne, I overlooked your enquiry about biographies of More. I have read only the one, i.e. Richard Marius, which I suppose is the most well known. It certainly seems to be well respected. Katy and Roslyn and Marie (and others, I'm sure) know a lot about More and may be able to recommend alternatives. We don't all think the same about him, by the way!

For literary appreciation of More there are the two works edited by Richard S Sylvester, Yale University Press: the "Complete Works" vol 2 (1963 I believe) concentrates on "Richard III" with an introduction by RSS, but is out of print and scarce as hens' teeth - I've had a request in at my local library for yonks. The other is entitled "St Thomas More: The History of King Richard III and Selections from the English and Latin Poems" (ed. Sylvester, 1976) available in paperback. I remarked in earlier posts that Sylvester takes the view that More wrote it as literature. However, he is conservative as to the political implications, doubtless in deference to his mediaevalist colleagues. As I think I've mentioned in other contexts, the problem with historians (and those who teach history at further education level) is specialization: they become expert in their particular period and seldom seem to look at other eras in depth. RSS's identification with the "Thomas More Project" at Yale probably left him scant time to do research into 15th-century material, so he doesn't go there.

Imagine the degree of research knowledge and anti-orthodox thinking RSS would have needed to embrace had he dared to challenge conventional thinking about Richard III in an area which was not his specialty. I think he just went as far as he could. Imagine the degree of expertise in 16th-century literature a mediaeval historian would need in order to expose More's "Richard III" for what it is, convincingly enough to overturn centuries of teaching in universities.

Interestingly enough, this year in England we have examples of programme notes to performances of Shakespeare's "Richard III" written by professors in Shakespeare studies, who show a very precise understanding of the 16th-century context and its misrepresentation of Richard's actions. They seem much more open-minded than many historians.

Finally, my own perception of More's "Richard III" has been strongly influenced by "Richard III and his Early Historians, 1483-1535" by historiographer Alison Hanham. She is fairly strongly biased in favour of the orthodox view of Richard, but this doesn't prevent her from analysing More's work with clear eyes. But I fear I have strayed too far from biographies of More. Oh, by the way, if Hilary Mantel didn't write fiction, I think a biography of Thomas More by her would probably be refreshing, given her characterization of him in "Wolf Hall"!
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:36 PM
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



Hi, Annette 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pro-More lobbyists can't be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully in all regards.

I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today from failing to do their due diligence, as the saying goes. I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. But surely that is practically impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don't have actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In which case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.

Of course that's just my tentative opinion. J

Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?

Johanne

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.

I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.

I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.

Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
Yours, Annette

Fascinating, Annette! Although I am not familiar with scholarly doings in the Ricardian field, I see it in the fields of Biblical Studies versus the study of Christian History, versus Christian Theology. It seems to me that the best way to get at the truth is to have the maximum cross-pollination among the various fields of endeavour, but once one reaches grad school in a seminary, the usual practice is to specialize in one field or the other. And the necessity, in Biblical Studies, for example, of mastering multiple relevant languages, both ancient and modern, is a discouraging factor, if one doesn't have that particular in-depth scholarly training. And of course, many people don't have the wherewithal to spend years studying not only Hebrew and Greek but Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, etc. etc. etc.



Pity!



And interesting that in Richard's case, his cause has largely been taken up by dedicated amateurs and those outside the historical field. Who would'a thunk it?



Thanks for your thoughts. I see some of Sylvester's books that you mentioned listed on Amazon  some at outrageous prices! Yikes!



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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







From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 7:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?





Sorry, Johanne, I overlooked your enquiry about biographies of More. I have read only the one, i.e. Richard Marius, which I suppose is the most well known. It certainly seems to be well respected. Katy and Roslyn and Marie (and others, I'm sure) know a lot about More and may be able to recommend alternatives. We don't all think the same about him, by the way!

For literary appreciation of More there are the two works edited by Richard S Sylvester, Yale University Press: the "Complete Works" vol 2 (1963 I believe) concentrates on "Richard III" with an introduction by RSS, but is out of print and scarce as hens' teeth - I've had a request in at my local library for yonks. The other is entitled "St Thomas More: The History of King Richard III and Selections from the English and Latin Poems" (ed. Sylvester, 1976) available in paperback. I remarked in earlier posts that Sylvester takes the view that More wrote it as literature. However, he is conservative as to the political implications, doubtless in deference to his mediaevalist colleagues. As I think I've mentioned in other contexts, the problem with historians (and those who teach history at further education level) is specialization: they become expert in their particular period and seldom seem to look at other eras in depth. RSS's identification with the "Thomas More Project" at Yale probably left him scant time to do research into 15th-century material, so he doesn't go there.

Imagine the degree of research knowledge and anti-orthodox thinking RSS would have needed to embrace had he dared to challenge conventional thinking about Richard III in an area which was not his specialty. I think he just went as far as he could. Imagine the degree of expertise in 16th-century literature a mediaeval historian would need in order to expose More's "Richard III" for what it is, convincingly enough to overturn centuries of teaching in universities.

Interestingly enough, this year in England we have examples of programme notes to performances of Shakespeare's "Richard III" written by professors in Shakespeare studies, who show a very precise understanding of the 16th-century context and its misrepresentation of Richard's actions. They seem much more open-minded than many historians.

Finally, my own perception of More's "Richard III" has been strongly influenced by "Richard III and his Early Historians, 1483-1535" by historiographer Alison Hanham. She is fairly strongly biased in favour of the orthodox view of Richard, but this doesn't prevent her from analysing More's work with clear eyes. But I fear I have strayed too far from biographies of More. Oh, by the way, if Hilary Mantel didn't write fiction, I think a biography of Thomas More by her would probably be refreshing, given her characterization of him in "Wolf Hall"!
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:36 PM
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Hi, Annette 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pro-More lobbyists can't be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully in all regards.

I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today from failing to do their due diligence, as the saying goes. I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. But surely that is practically impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don't have actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In which case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.

Of course that's just my tentative opinion. J

Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?

Johanne

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.

I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.

I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.

Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
Yours, Annette

Yes, quite right (about cross-pollination). It takes a subject of very special interest to get academics to cross over and expose themselves to the kind of disparagement and ridicule that Ricardians like me receive. And John Ashdown-Hill, who has now produced THREE books from the revisionist standpoint to my ONE! Hopefully the world-wide acclamation for the scholarship that's gone into the Leicester dig is the kind of thing that will make it less fashionable to pooh-pooh the minority view.


----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



Fascinating, Annette! Although I am not familiar with scholarly doings in the Ricardian field, I see it in the fields of Biblical Studies versus the study of Christian History, versus Christian Theology. It seems to me that the best way to get at the truth is to have the maximum cross-pollination among the various fields of endeavour, but once one reaches grad school in a seminary, the usual practice is to specialize in one field or the other. And the necessity, in Biblical Studies, for example, of mastering multiple relevant languages, both ancient and modern, is a discouraging factor, if one doesn't have that particular in-depth scholarly training. And of course, many people don't have the wherewithal to spend years studying not only Hebrew and Greek but Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, etc. etc. etc.

Pity!

And interesting that in Richard's case, his cause has largely been taken up by dedicated amateurs and those outside the historical field. Who would'a thunk it?

Thanks for your thoughts. I see some of Sylvester's books that you mentioned listed on Amazon  some at outrageous prices! Yikes!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 7:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Sorry, Johanne, I overlooked your enquiry about biographies of More. I have read only the one, i.e. Richard Marius, which I suppose is the most well known. It certainly seems to be well respected. Katy and Roslyn and Marie (and others, I'm sure) know a lot about More and may be able to recommend alternatives. We don't all think the same about him, by the way!

For literary appreciation of More there are the two works edited by Richard S Sylvester, Yale University Press: the "Complete Works" vol 2 (1963 I believe) concentrates on "Richard III" with an introduction by RSS, but is out of print and scarce as hens' teeth - I've had a request in at my local library for yonks. The other is entitled "St Thomas More: The History of King Richard III and Selections from the English and Latin Poems" (ed. Sylvester, 1976) available in paperback. I remarked in earlier posts that Sylvester takes the view that More wrote it as literature. However, he is conservative as to the political implications, doubtless in deference to his mediaevalist colleagues. As I think I've mentioned in other contexts, the problem with historians (and those who teach history at further education level) is specialization: they become expert in their particular period and seldom seem to look at other eras in depth. RSS's identification with the "Thomas More Project" at Yale probably left him scant time to do research into 15th-century material, so he doesn't go there.

Imagine the degree of research knowledge and anti-orthodox thinking RSS would have needed to embrace had he dared to challenge conventional thinking about Richard III in an area which was not his specialty. I think he just went as far as he could. Imagine the degree of expertise in 16th-century literature a mediaeval historian would need in order to expose More's "Richard III" for what it is, convincingly enough to overturn centuries of teaching in universities.

Interestingly enough, this year in England we have examples of programme notes to performances of Shakespeare's "Richard III" written by professors in Shakespeare studies, who show a very precise understanding of the 16th-century context and its misrepresentation of Richard's actions. They seem much more open-minded than many historians.

Finally, my own perception of More's "Richard III" has been strongly influenced by "Richard III and his Early Historians, 1483-1535" by historiographer Alison Hanham. She is fairly strongly biased in favour of the orthodox view of Richard, but this doesn't prevent her from analysing More's work with clear eyes. But I fear I have strayed too far from biographies of More. Oh, by the way, if Hilary Mantel didn't write fiction, I think a biography of Thomas More by her would probably be refreshing, given her characterization of him in "Wolf Hall"!
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:36 PM
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Hi, Annette 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pro-More lobbyists can't be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully in all regards.

I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today from failing to do their due diligence, as the saying goes. I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. But surely that is practically impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don't have actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In which case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.

Of course that's just my tentative opinion. J

Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?

Johanne

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.

I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.

I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.

Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
Yours, Annette

Hmm . . . if things keep up, maybe there may be a bit of criticism flowing back on the scholars, if it appears to the popular press and media that they have fallen down on the job. Although I am sometimes shocked at how ignorant the comments are, I think I've seen more sympathetic, or at least open-minded comments about Richard since the Leicester dig than I had ever seen before.



I have gotten two of Ashdown-Hill's books (*The Last Days . . .* and *The Secret Queen*) for my trusty kindle, but unfortunately haven't had time to read either of them yet. I am currently reading *Richard III and the Death of Chivalry* by David Hipshon. He is sympathetic to Richard, but I am currently near the beginning, in which he is writing more about the elder generation of Yorkists and Lancastrians than about Richard. I would be interested to hear your comments and those of others here about his book. It does seem to me that he is providing some in-depth discussion of martial matters that may not be as thoroughly discussed in most other books on Richard.



Thanks for your thoughts!



Johanne



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Yes, quite right (about cross-pollination). It takes a subject of very special interest to get academics to cross over and expose themselves to the kind of disparagement and ridicule that Ricardians like me receive. And John Ashdown-Hill, who has now produced THREE books from the revisionist standpoint to my ONE! Hopefully the world-wide acclamation for the scholarship that's gone into the Leicester dig is the kind of thing that will make it less fashionable to pooh-pooh the minority view.

When you get to page 203 of Hipshon, you may think differently. Unless it's been amended.
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:46 PM
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?



Hmm . . . if things keep up, maybe there may be a bit of criticism flowing back on the scholars, if it appears to the popular press and media that they have fallen down on the job. Although I am sometimes shocked at how ignorant the comments are, I think I've seen more sympathetic, or at least open-minded comments about Richard since the Leicester dig than I had ever seen before.

I have gotten two of Ashdown-Hill's books (*The Last Days . . .* and *The Secret Queen*) for my trusty kindle, but unfortunately haven't had time to read either of them yet. I am currently reading *Richard III and the Death of Chivalry* by David Hipshon. He is sympathetic to Richard, but I am currently near the beginning, in which he is writing more about the elder generation of Yorkists and Lancastrians than about Richard. I would be interested to hear your comments and those of others here about his book. It does seem to me that he is providing some in-depth discussion of martial matters that may not be as thoroughly discussed in most other books on Richard.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Johanne

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Yes, quite right (about cross-pollination). It takes a subject of very special interest to get academics to cross over and expose themselves to the kind of disparagement and ridicule that Ricardians like me receive. And John Ashdown-Hill, who has now produced THREE books from the revisionist standpoint to my ONE! Hopefully the world-wide acclamation for the scholarship that's gone into the Leicester dig is the kind of thing that will make it less fashionable to pooh-pooh the minority view.

Uh-oh. Thanks for the heads up  I think. J



I will let you know if anything pops up (or my opinion changes) at pg. 203.



Johanne



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?





When you get to page 203 of Hipshon, you may think differently. Unless it's been amended.
Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:46 PM
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Hmm . . . if things keep up, maybe there may be a bit of criticism flowing back on the scholars, if it appears to the popular press and media that they have fallen down on the job. Although I am sometimes shocked at how ignorant the comments are, I think I've seen more sympathetic, or at least open-minded comments about Richard since the Leicester dig than I had ever seen before.

I have gotten two of Ashdown-Hill's books (*The Last Days . . .* and *The Secret Queen*) for my trusty kindle, but unfortunately haven't had time to read either of them yet. I am currently reading *Richard III and the Death of Chivalry* by David Hipshon. He is sympathetic to Richard, but I am currently near the beginning, in which he is writing more about the elder generation of Yorkists and Lancastrians than about Richard. I would be interested to hear your comments and those of others here about his book. It does seem to me that he is providing some in-depth discussion of martial matters that may not be as thoroughly discussed in most other books on Richard.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Johanne

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:33 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Yes, quite right (about cross-pollination). It takes a subject of very special interest to get academics to cross over and expose themselves to the kind of disparagement and ridicule that Ricardians like me receive. And John Ashdown-Hill, who has now produced THREE books from the revisionist standpoint to my ONE! Hopefully the world-wide acclamation for the scholarship that's gone into the Leicester dig is the kind of thing that will make it less fashionable to pooh-pooh the minority view.

Longford was perhaps more of a "holy fool" - and very different from More, who was neither foolish nor holy.

'A Man for All Seasons' is a good play, though, and a very fine film.  Shame about the Heston version - it was one of his favourite roles and he was desperate to record it.  It became pretty much a filmed version of the Chichester Festival Theatre production, but it can't begin to compare with Scofield's.  Which is a pity, because I liked the fact that it restored the character of the Common Man, beautifully played by Roy Kinnear, and the supporting roles were very strongly cast.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 18:02
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


 
Lol..I might as well say Liz...More reminds me of another holier than thou person..Lord Longford...He campaigned strenuously for years to get Myra Hyndley released which was bad enough but then told the mother of a murdered child that she would not get to heaven because she would not forgive the murderers....A dangerous idiot...Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Who reminds you - More or Heston?  :-)  Of course Heston is dead too now
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:57
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>  
> He reminds me so much of someone..I better not say as although this person is now dead it might not be appropriate ....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >
> > à
> > Oh not to me Annette!à (I wish you would put them in writing)
> > à
> > Personally Iàthink àPaul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> > à
> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Try as I can, I cannot see Charlton Heston playing Thomas More. What did he do about his accent?

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Longford was perhaps more of a "holy fool" - and very different from More, who was neither foolish nor holy.
>
> 'A Man for All Seasons' is a good play, though, and a very fine film.  Shame about the Heston version - it was one of his favourite roles and he was desperate to record it.  It became pretty much a filmed version of the Chichester Festival Theatre production, but it can't begin to compare with Scofield's.  Which is a pity, because I liked the fact that it restored the character of the Common Man, beautifully played by Roy Kinnear, and the supporting roles were very strongly cast.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 18:02
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> Lol..I might as well say Liz...More reminds me of another holier than thou person..Lord Longford...He campaigned strenuously for years to get Myra Hyndley released which was bad enough but then told the mother of a murdered child that she would not get to heaven because she would not forgive the murderers....A dangerous idiot...Eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Who reminds you - More or Heston?  :-)  Of course Heston is dead too now
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:57
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >  
> > He reminds me so much of someone..I better not say as although this person is now dead it might not be appropriate ....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
> > >  
> > > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > >  
> > > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree with you. Somehow I always see Heston as a biblical figure (aka Moses, Ben Hur, didn't he also play John the Baptist in one film?) or an action hero (as in Planet of the Apes or The Omega Man). And on the other hand, Paul Scofield seemed perfect as Sir Thomas. Thinking of it makes me want to see the movie again  even if it is a work of fiction!



Methinks that Heston's essaying the role is an instance of an actor with clout wanting to break out of the mold in which he's been typecast. And perhaps not recognizing his limitations as an actor, more's the pity! J



That's my 2 farthings.



Johanne



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:18 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?





Try as I can, I cannot see Charlton Heston playing Thomas More. What did he do about his accent?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Longford was perhaps more of a "holy fool" - and very different from More, who was neither foolish nor holy.
>
> 'A Man for All Seasons' is a good play, though, and a very fine film. Shame about the Heston version - it was one of his favourite roles and he was desperate to record it. It became pretty much a filmed version of the Chichester Festival Theatre production, but it can't begin to compare with Scofield's. Which is a pity, because I liked the fact that it restored the character of the Common Man, beautifully played by Roy Kinnear, and the supporting roles were very strongly cast.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 18:02
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
> Â
> Lol..I might as well say Liz...More reminds me of another holier than thou person..Lord Longford...He campaigned strenuously for years to get Myra Hyndley released which was bad enough but then told the mother of a murdered child that she would not get to heaven because she would not forgive the murderers....A dangerous idiot...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Who reminds you - More or Heston?ÃÂ :-)ÃÂ Of course Heston is dead too now
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:57
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > He reminds me so much of someone..I better not say as although this person is now dead it might not be appropriate ....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Oh not to me Annette!Ã’â¬aà(I wish you would put them in writing)
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Personally IÃ’â¬aàthink Ã’â¬aàPaul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ooh! Ooh! I love the Common Man! "I'm breathing... are you breathing too? It's nice, isn't it? Don't make trouble... or if you do, make the kind of trouble that's expected."

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Longford was perhaps more of a "holy fool" - and very different from More, who was neither foolish nor holy.
>
> 'A Man for All Seasons' is a good play, though, and a very fine film.  Shame about the Heston version - it was one of his favourite roles and he was desperate to record it.  It became pretty much a filmed version of the Chichester Festival Theatre production, but it can't begin to compare with Scofield's.  Which is a pity, because I liked the fact that it restored the character of the Common Man, beautifully played by Roy Kinnear, and the supporting roles were very strongly cast.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 18:02
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>  
> Lol..I might as well say Liz...More reminds me of another holier than thou person..Lord Longford...He campaigned strenuously for years to get Myra Hyndley released which was bad enough but then told the mother of a murdered child that she would not get to heaven because she would not forgive the murderers....A dangerous idiot...Eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Who reminds you - More or Heston?  :-)  Of course Heston is dead too now
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:57
> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> >
> >  
> > He reminds me so much of someone..I better not say as although this person is now dead it might not be appropriate ....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Oh not to me Annette!  (I wish you would put them in writing)
> > >  
> > > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09
> > > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
> > >
> > >  
> > > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Take your filthy paws off me, you damn dirty stinking cardinals! Cheerio, pip-pip."

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Try as I can, I cannot see Charlton Heston playing Thomas More. What did he do about his accent?

Well, it's not always a disaster one can see coming from a thousand miles away... Richard Chamberlain was THE dreamboat on American TV in the early 1960s, but he knew he couldn't act and it always really bothered him. He took off for England when the gigs dried up and spent some time learning the craft that had already made him rich. To see him in the video of "The Lady's Not for Burning" with Eileen Atkins is a revelation to those of us who grew up swooning over Dr. Kildare.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with you. Somehow I always see Heston as a biblical figure (aka Moses, Ben Hur, didn’t he also play John the Baptist in one film?) or an action hero (as in Planet of the Apes or The Omega Man). And on the other hand, Paul Scofield seemed perfect as Sir Thomas. Thinking of it makes me want to see the movie again â€" even if it is a work of fiction!
>
>
>
> Methinks that Heston’s essaying the role is an instance of an actor with clout wanting to break out of the mold in which he’s been typecast. And perhaps not recognizing his limitations as an actor, “more’s” the pity! J
>
>
>
> That’s my 2 farthings.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
>
>
> Try as I can, I cannot see Charlton Heston playing Thomas More. What did he do about his accent?

There is that telling exchange in Man For All Seasons when Wolsey asks More if he wants to rule the country through prayer, and More says he would. Wolsey comes straight back at him with "I'd like to see you try". The difference between a religious fanatic and a religious politician?
Paul

On 30 Sep 2012, at 21:36, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Hi, Annette 
>
> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pro-More lobbyists can't be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully in all regards.
>
> I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today from failing to do their due diligence, as the saying goes. I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. But surely that is practically impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don't have actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In which case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.
>
>
>
> Of course that's just my tentative opinion. J
>
>
>
> Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.
>
> I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.
>
> I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.
>
> Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
> Yours, Annette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Or of the need to prove a crime has been committed before you accuse anyone of a crime!
Paul

On 30 Sep 2012, at 21:50, liz williams wrote:

> SNIP
> < I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. >
>
>
> Mr Hicks has obviously never heard of "innocent until proven guilty"
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 21:36
> Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
> Hi, Annette 
>
> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pro-More lobbyists can't be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully in all regards.
>
> I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today from failing to do their due diligence, as the saying goes. I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. But surely that is practically impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don't have actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In which
> case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.
>
> Of course that's just my tentative opinion. J
>
> Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?
>
> Johanne
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.
>
> I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.
>
> I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.
>
> Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
> Yours, Annette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hipshon is very much an admirer of Richard before 1483 then he does an about face, and follows More and the traditionalists.
In his biography of Richard it looks as if he got bored halfway through and lazy with his research, and ends up for the most part following the tradition. A great disappointment!
Paul

On 1 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Hmm . . . if things keep up, maybe there may be a bit of criticism flowing back on the scholars, if it appears to the popular press and media that they have fallen down on the job. Although I am sometimes shocked at how ignorant the comments are, I think I've seen more sympathetic, or at least open-minded comments about Richard since the Leicester dig than I had ever seen before.
>
>
>
> I have gotten two of Ashdown-Hill's books (*The Last Days . . .* and *The Secret Queen*) for my trusty kindle, but unfortunately haven't had time to read either of them yet. I am currently reading *Richard III and the Death of Chivalry* by David Hipshon. He is sympathetic to Richard, but I am currently near the beginning, in which he is writing more about the elder generation of Yorkists and Lancastrians than about Richard. I would be interested to hear your comments and those of others here about his book. It does seem to me that he is providing some in-depth discussion of martial matters that may not be as thoroughly discussed in most other books on Richard.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your thoughts!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:33 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Yes, quite right (about cross-pollination). It takes a subject of very special interest to get academics to cross over and expose themselves to the kind of disparagement and ridicule that Ricardians like me receive. And John Ashdown-Hill, who has now produced THREE books from the revisionist standpoint to my ONE! Hopefully the world-wide acclamation for the scholarship that's gone into the Leicester dig is the kind of thing that will make it less fashionable to pooh-pooh the minority view.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Had a good stab at Hamlet too.
Paul

On 2 Oct 2012, at 01:18, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:

> Well, it's not always a disaster one can see coming from a thousand miles away... Richard Chamberlain was THE dreamboat on American TV in the early 1960s, but he knew he couldn't act and it always really bothered him. He took off for England when the gigs dried up and spent some time learning the craft that had already made him rich. To see him in the video of "The Lady's Not for Burning" with Eileen Atkins is a revelation to those of us who grew up swooning over Dr. Kildare.
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with you. Somehow I always see Heston as a biblical figure (aka Moses, Ben Hur, didnâ"Ùt he also play John the Baptist in one film?) or an action hero (as in Planet of the Apes or The Omega Man). And on the other hand, Paul Scofield seemed perfect as Sir Thomas. Thinking of it makes me want to see the movie again â"" even if it is a work of fiction!
>>
>>
>>
>> Methinks that Hestonâ"Ùs essaying the role is an instance of an actor with clout wanting to break out of the mold in which heâ"Ùs been typecast. And perhaps not recognizing his limitations as an actor, â"Ûmoreâ"Ùsâ"Ç the pity! J
>>
>>
>>
>> Thatâ"Ùs my 2 farthings.
>>
>>
>>
>> Johanne
>>
>>
>>
>> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:18 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Try as I can, I cannot see Charlton Heston playing Thomas More. What did he do about his accent?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Whew-hah! I kind of got the impression of something of the kind from
Annette's comments. Doesn't really make sense, does it? Or does it?

Anyway, I can understand that that would be a bit of a disappointment. I
think anyone that goes the traditional toute (i.e. following More's line)
has to be prepared to defend their position with good hard evidence and taut
reasoning these days!

Johanne

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Hipshon is very much an admirer of Richard before 1483 then he does an about
face, and follows More and the traditionalists.
In his biography of Richard it looks as if he got bored halfway through and
lazy with his research, and ends up for the most part following the
tradition. A great disappointment!
Paul

On 1 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Hmm . . . if things keep up, maybe there may be a bit of criticism flowing
back on the scholars, if it appears to the popular press and media that they
have fallen down on the job. Although I am sometimes shocked at how ignorant
the comments are, I think I've seen more sympathetic, or at least
open-minded comments about Richard since the Leicester dig than I had ever
seen before.
>
>
>
> I have gotten two of Ashdown-Hill's books (*The Last Days . . .* and *The
Secret Queen*) for my trusty kindle, but unfortunately haven't had time to
read either of them yet. I am currently reading *Richard III and the Death
of Chivalry* by David Hipshon. He is sympathetic to Richard, but I am
currently near the beginning, in which he is writing more about the elder
generation of Yorkists and Lancastrians than about Richard. I would be
interested to hear your comments and those of others here about his book. It
does seem to me that he is providing some in-depth discussion of martial
matters that may not be as thoroughly discussed in most other books on
Richard.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your thoughts!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:33 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Yes, quite right (about cross-pollination). It takes a subject of very
special interest to get academics to cross over and expose themselves to the
kind of disparagement and ridicule that Ricardians like me receive. And John
Ashdown-Hill, who has now produced THREE books from the revisionist
standpoint to my ONE! Hopefully the world-wide acclamation for the
scholarship that's gone into the Leicester dig is the kind of thing that
will make it less fashionable to pooh-pooh the minority view.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Quite. The BONEHEADS are so convinced by More's contradictory fairy tale
that they view every defence of Richard as an accusation of someone else.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


Or of the need to prove a crime has been committed before you accuse anyone
of a crime!
Paul

On 30 Sep 2012, at 21:50, liz williams wrote:

> SNIP
> < I recently read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that
> Ricardians have not been able to prove Richard III innocent. >
>
>
> Mr Hicks has obviously never heard of "innocent until proven guilty"
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 21:36
> Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
> Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
>
> Hi, Annette 
>
> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the pro-More lobbyists
> can't be bothered to go to the trouble to scrutinize their man carefully
> in all regards.
>
> I tend to agree with you as a general principle that for a man in his
> position, religion would have been an all-pervasive influence. If he had a
> sort of pathological condition involving his religious impulses, perhaps
> combined with a massive guilt complex, it suggests that even in areas
> where he was highly regarded, the pathology would have intruded into his
> judgement. Perhaps it was not perceived in his day, because the pathology
> was shared by many of his fellows? But that cannot excuse people today
> from failing to do their due diligence, as the saying goes. I recently
> read somewhere Hicks saying words to the effect that Ricardians have not
> been able to prove Richard III innocent. But surely that is practically
> impossible, given all the circumstances, given the fact that we don't have
> actual proof of the crime. But I presume that the facts that you refer to
> about the sainted More are there for people who are searching to find. In
> which
> case, it suggests sloppy scholarship.
>
> Of course that's just my tentative opinion. J
>
> Are there one or two biographies of More that you would recommend?
>
> Johanne
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Annette Carson
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:17 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
> Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an
> outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England.
> He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded
> considerable power and influence.
>
> I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or
> obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion.
> Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in
> which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he
> felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to
> his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well
> endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work
> twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities
> and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also
> acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church,
> another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater
> responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a
> psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt
> trip.
>
> I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized
> such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the
> great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are
> familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful,
> ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc,
> etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the
> category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution
> elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely
> significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint,
> the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation
> ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess
> his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed,
> unfinished account of historical fact.
>
> Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of
> the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered
> elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As
> opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or
> poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation
> would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and
> to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it,
> and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
> Yours, Annette
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

On 2 Oct 2012, at 11:40, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Whew-hah! I kind of got the impression of something of the kind from
> Annette's comments. Doesn't really make sense, does it? Or does it?

I shall be asking him that very question in a couple of weeks time at a conference I am going to in Market Bosworth! Why Mr Hipshon? Why buy into the complete traditional about face in Richard that went against his entire character and life before that point? Like your book it doesn't make sense!
Paul



>
> Anyway, I can understand that that would be a bit of a disappointment. I
> think anyone that goes the traditional toute (i.e. following More's line)
> has to be prepared to defend their position with good hard evidence and taut
> reasoning these days!
>
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
> Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Hipshon is very much an admirer of Richard before 1483 then he does an about
> face, and follows More and the traditionalists.
> In his biography of Richard it looks as if he got bored halfway through and
> lazy with his research, and ends up for the most part following the
> tradition. A great disappointment!
> Paul
>
> On 1 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
>> Hmm . . . if things keep up, maybe there may be a bit of criticism flowing
> back on the scholars, if it appears to the popular press and media that they
> have fallen down on the job. Although I am sometimes shocked at how ignorant
> the comments are, I think I've seen more sympathetic, or at least
> open-minded comments about Richard since the Leicester dig than I had ever
> seen before.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have gotten two of Ashdown-Hill's books (*The Last Days . . .* and *The
> Secret Queen*) for my trusty kindle, but unfortunately haven't had time to
> read either of them yet. I am currently reading *Richard III and the Death
> of Chivalry* by David Hipshon. He is sympathetic to Richard, but I am
> currently near the beginning, in which he is writing more about the elder
> generation of Yorkists and Lancastrians than about Richard. I would be
> interested to hear your comments and those of others here about his book. It
> does seem to me that he is providing some in-depth discussion of martial
> matters that may not be as thoroughly discussed in most other books on
> Richard.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts!
>>
>>
>>
>> Johanne
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:33 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
> Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>>
>> Yes, quite right (about cross-pollination). It takes a subject of very
> special interest to get academics to cross over and expose themselves to the
> kind of disparagement and ridicule that Ricardians like me receive. And John
> Ashdown-Hill, who has now produced THREE books from the revisionist
> standpoint to my ONE! Hopefully the world-wide acclamation for the
> scholarship that's gone into the Leicester dig is the kind of thing that
> will make it less fashionable to pooh-pooh the minority view.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I do not think Mr. Hipshon will be discussing that part, and will be going too. I am looking forward to it - well I always do - good event.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


 


On 2 Oct 2012, at 11:40, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Whew-hah! I kind of got the impression of something of the kind from
> Annette's comments. Doesn't really make sense, does it? Or does it?

I shall be asking him that very question in a couple of weeks time at a conference I am going to in Market Bosworth! Why Mr Hipshon? Why buy into the complete traditional about face in Richard that went against his entire character and life before that point? Like your book it doesn't make sense!
Paul

>
> Anyway, I can understand that that would be a bit of a disappointment. I
> think anyone that goes the traditional toute (i.e. following More's line)
> has to be prepared to defend their position with good hard evidence and taut
> reasoning these days!
>
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:28 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
> Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>
> Hipshon is very much an admirer of Richard before 1483 then he does an about
> face, and follows More and the traditionalists.
> In his biography of Richard it looks as if he got bored halfway through and
> lazy with his research, and ends up for the most part following the
> tradition. A great disappointment!
> Paul
>
> On 1 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
>> Hmm . . . if things keep up, maybe there may be a bit of criticism flowing
> back on the scholars, if it appears to the popular press and media that they
> have fallen down on the job. Although I am sometimes shocked at how ignorant
> the comments are, I think I've seen more sympathetic, or at least
> open-minded comments about Richard since the Leicester dig than I had ever
> seen before.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have gotten two of Ashdown-Hill's books (*The Last Days . . .* and *The
> Secret Queen*) for my trusty kindle, but unfortunately haven't had time to
> read either of them yet. I am currently reading *Richard III and the Death
> of Chivalry* by David Hipshon. He is sympathetic to Richard, but I am
> currently near the beginning, in which he is writing more about the elder
> generation of Yorkists and Lancastrians than about Richard. I would be
> interested to hear your comments and those of others here about his book. It
> does seem to me that he is providing some in-depth discussion of martial
> matters that may not be as thoroughly discussed in most other books on
> Richard.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts!
>>
>>
>>
>> Johanne
>>
>>
>>
>> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:33 AM
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and
> Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>>
>> Yes, quite right (about cross-pollination). It takes a subject of very
> special interest to get academics to cross over and expose themselves to the
> kind of disparagement and ridicule that Ricardians like me receive. And John
> Ashdown-Hill, who has now produced THREE books from the revisionist
> standpoint to my ONE! Hopefully the world-wide acclamation for the
> scholarship that's gone into the Leicester dig is the kind of thing that
> will make it less fashionable to pooh-pooh the minority view.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

It's on youtube, or at least part of it is.



________________________________
On 2 Oct 2012, at 01:18, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:

> Well, it's not always a disaster one can see coming from a thousand miles away... Richard Chamberlain was THE dreamboat on American TV in the early 1960s, but he knew he couldn't act and it always really bothered him. He took off for England when the gigs dried up and spent some time learning the craft that had already made him rich. To see him in the video of "The Lady's Not for Burning" with Eileen Atkins is a revelation to those of us who grew up swooning over Dr. Kildare.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with you. Somehow I always see Heston as a biblical figure (aka Moses, Ben Hur, didnâ"Ùt he also play John the Baptist in one film?) or an action hero (as in Planet of the Apes or The Omega Man). And on the other hand, Paul Scofield seemed perfect as Sir Thomas. Thinking of it makes me want to see the movie again â"" even if it is a work of fiction!
>>
>>
>>
>> Methinks that Hestonâ"Ùs essaying the role is an instance of an actor with clout wanting to break out of the mold in which heâ"Ùs been typecast. And perhaps not recognizing his limitations as an actor, â"Ûmoreâ"Ùsâ"Ç the pity! J
>>
>>
>>
>> Thatâ"Ùs my 2 farthings.
>>
>>
>>
>> Johanne
>>
>>
>>
>> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of EileenB
>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 4:18 PM
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Try as I can, I cannot see Charlton Heston playing Thomas More. What did he do about his accent?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

It seems that this thread has more or less run its course, but I just found in another article that Rosemary Horrox had written an article on Richard Pottyer in the Ricardian ('Richard Pottyer', The Ricardian, Vol.V, No.71 (December 1980), pp.284-285), so I am reviving it.  I have to dig this article out and have a look. 


Regards,

Dorothea



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 October 2012 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?


 
Well, Johanne, it must be said that Thomas More was a great scholar, an outstanding intellect, and one of the most highly regarded men in England. He also had a high reputation for probity as a judge, and wielded considerable power and influence.

I personally believe that he suffered from a kind of religious fervour or obsession that made him lose all rationality in the context of religion. Unfortunately the religious context was all-pervading, and it was one in which he perceived himself - rightly - to have fallen short of what he felt he ought to have aspired to, whether due to his carnal desires, or to his overweening ambition and self-regard, with which he was certainly well endowed. So, for his immortal soul to receive redemption, he had to work twice as hard as other men who were not blessed/cursed with his abilities and his perception. Thanks to his position and contacts he was also acutely aware of the new learning and the growing threat to Mother Church, another reason why with his greater awareness he probably felt a greater responsibility to go to extreme lengths to defend her. Look, I'm not a psychologist, but I can see the signs of a massive intellectual guilt trip.

I suspect that (mostly male) historians over the centuries have recognized such internal conflicts because they are grist to the mill in terms of the great men who form their area of study. This is home territory, they are familiar with movers and shakers who were simultaneously powerful, ruthless, inventive, ambitious, God-fearing, dictatorial, devious, etc, etc, and since More rose to be Chancellor of England, he falls within the category of such elevated persons. Plus the context of his execution elevates him still further. Within this aura of Thomas More the hugely significant political/Renaissance/religious figure and latterday saint, the historians have scant interest in engaging in literary appreciation ... which HAS to be the standpoint (I submit) from which one must assess his "Richard III" if one is NOT accepting it as a somewhat flawed, unfinished account of historical fact.

Much easier, frankly, to accept it as a neatly encapsulated narrative of the rise to power of Richard III which answers questions not answered elsewhere, written by a man who was in a position to know this stuff. As opposed to written by a chap who earned his living writing drama or poetry, for example. Only those of us interested in Richard's reputation would have sufficient care to challenge its authenticity as history, and to dig around looking for how and why More might have come to write it, and whether his writings are invariably to be trusted.
Yours, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Dear Annette 

If one is helping to bring out the truth, even in regard to matters which can be the subject of honest debate, rather than just writing an ad hominem screed, it's worth doing, and no one's sensibilities should be offended. I had never read any of this, but then I certainly know less about Thomas More than I know about King Richard III.

I guess my question is  it's not too surprising that it would be aired here, home of the defence of King Richard - why shouldn't this material be well known enough that it be taken into consideration  or even have the pros and cons debated - by the historians who defend More? I suppose it may be said that he could be a stinker in one or two (or a half dozen) areas of his life, and objectively correct about his portrayal of Richard, but putting the whole picture together, it doesn't exactly seem that way, does it?

And, considering all of this  what biography of More would be most worth reading?

Thanks for posting!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

Thomas More was known for the rigour of his persecutions of all heretics of whatever persuasion. He had the habit of locking them up in his garden shed and beating the bejasus out of them (or so it was said - and hey, live by the sword, die by the sword). Then if they didn't recant he rejoiced nastily in their agonies at the stake (reported fact).

Whether he was murdered/martyred for his faith is another question, and one on which I may cause the aforementioned offence. My point is that by refusing to take Henry's oath, More tried for over a year to weasel his way around having to commit himself as to the relative supremacy of Henry VIII or the pope, even hiding behind the legal maxim that 'silence indicates consent'. Clearly, to my mind, he was not standing up in defence of the catholic tenet of papal supremacy for which it is supposed he was martyred. It was only when he failed to defeat the charge and was found guilty of treason that he came out and stated his position openly. My conclusion about More is that he was principally (or perhaps wholly) concerned with himself and his family, his survival, and his own immortal soul, he was not someone who was prepared to die for his faith 'pour encourager les autres' if there was any way he could lawyer his way out of it. This is not a value judgement
- I'd have done exactly the same - but then I wouldn't expect to qualify for sainthood.

The relationship between Thomas More and his immortal soul was very problematical, which may be why he adopted such an unrelenting approach with free-thinkers, otherwise known as heretics. As a young man he wrestled with his conscience as to whether to take holy orders, but decided against it because he was unable to suppress his carnal desires. So when he married he chose a woman who would bring him no delight or solace: his version of a marital hair-shirt, I suppose. He could be quite horrid to her and to most other members of his family except his adopted daughter (no, I'm not going there ...), so evidently if he had to endure this metaphorical hair-shirt, he was not going to endure it alone.

The most astonishing thing about the supposedly upright More was that where his religion was concerned, the end justified any means. Thus he wrote a totally mendacious account of the murder of Richard Hunne at the hands of Bishop Tunstall, trying to prove that poor Hunne was a heretic who was 'so depressed at being found out that he killed himself, and so depraved that he tried to make his suicide look like murder' (Marius, p. 140). Suffice to say that More twisted and distorted facts in this case (despite what had been openly established by the justices in the affair), and just plain lied on behalf of his friend Tunstall. Marius's summation of this episode is different from my own, but those are the bare bones of the matter. Hunne's great 'sin', by the way, was to complain that the mortuary fees for a burial were too high, for which he ended up excommunicated, imprisoned and done to death by the church.

I then find it even more astounding that despite having admitted and described in detail this barefaced episode of lying by More (on top of other less than salubrious aspects of his life), Richard Marius nevertheless takes More's "Richard III" to be a 100 percent recital of the truth.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

do some reading on the inquistion period 13th to 19thC. the catholic were notorious for burning the heretics. the protestants were heretics in the eye of the catholic church. jolly ole more died a devote catholic, and was murdered/martyred for his faith.

this crusade basically began the era of the inquistion. interestingly is was one christian religion against another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

there is a story about a town of occupied by the cathars, and it was totally razed to the ground. the leading commander was asked, what about those who are not heretics and he replied god would sort out who were the heretics. kill them all. (paraphrased)

--- On Sat, 9/29/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> > wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 6:17 PM

Can someone tell me this....I have a recollection that the sainted Sir Thomas had a hand in Protestants being burned at the stake. Ive taken a look at the Wiki thingy on More and it does indeed say that at least six people were burned at the stake during his chancellorship

and he would have authorised this...Now I dont like More at all but I dont want to malign him over an untruth/mistake....Is this indeed a fact? Could a man who had authorised people to be burned to death be canonised? I can scare believe it!?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

>

> I'm sure Charlton Heston didnt play More....he played Moses.....

>

> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:

> >

> > It certainly isn't Charlton Heston.

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>

> > To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 21:35

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> >

> > Â

> > Oh not to me Annette! (I wish you would put them in writing)

> > Â

> > Personally I think  Paul Schofield is to blame for so much of the More-worship....

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Annette Carson <email@>

> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 18:09

> > Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More: Mistlebrook and Pottier: Did We Miss Something?

> >

> > Â

> > I fear that if I put in writing my true thoughts about Thomas More, I am likely to cause offence ;-). >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

Thank you very much. It will be interesting to hear what it says.

Anybody know if the back issues of the "Ricardian" were ever/will ever be digitized?

--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> It seems that this thread has more or less run its course, but I just found in another article that Rosemary Horrox had written an article on Richard Pottyer in the Ricardian ('Richard Pottyer', The Ricardian, Vol.V, No.71 (December 1980), pp.284-285), so I am reviving it.  I have to dig this article out and have a look. 
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Dorothea