Margaret of York and Richard III

I just found proof in Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret of York that Margaret never repudiated Richard or lost her affection for him. The English translation of her Latin epitaph (recorded before its destruction) read in part, "Sister of their serene highnesses Edward and Richard, kings of England, wife of the illustrious Charles, Duke of Burgundy . . . , a marvellous [sic] and devoted Patroness of Justice, of Religion and Reform, the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord 1503. Pray for her."

Now if I could only find proof that their mother Cecily felt the same way.

Carol

Carol, read the rest of Cecily's bequests. She may well have "spoken her mind," in a somewhat round-about way.... 

"...Also I give to my lord prince a bed of arras of the wheel of fortune..." 

Hmmm. The Wheel of Fortune? Nice. And to the de la Poles:

 
"...Also I give to my
son of Suffolk a cloth of estate and 3 cushions of purple damask cloth of gold... ."

Purple cloth of gold? Pretty, um, regal gift....

Judy
My take, anyway ;-)    

 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:45 PM
Subject: Margaret of York and Richard III


 
I just found proof in Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret of York that Margaret never repudiated Richard or lost her affection for him. The English translation of her Latin epitaph (recorded before its destruction) read in part, "Sister of their serene highnesses Edward and Richard, kings of England, wife of the illustrious Charles, Duke of Burgundy . . . , a marvellous [sic] and devoted Patroness of Justice, of Religion and Reform, the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord 1503. Pray for her."

Now if I could only find proof that their mother Cecily felt the same way.

Carol

Thanks for that Judy....I would not have thought of that until you pointed it out...and it does make perfect sense....Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, read the rest of Cecily's bequests. She may well have "spoken her mind," in a somewhat round-about way.... 
>
> "...Also I give to my lord prince a bed of arras of the wheel of fortune..." 
>
> Hmmm. The Wheel of Fortune? Nice. And to the de la Poles:
>
>  
> "...Also I give to my
> son of Suffolk a cloth of estate and 3 cushions of purple damask cloth of gold... ."
>
> Purple cloth of gold? Pretty, um, regal gift....
>
> Judy
> My take, anyway ;-)    
>
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:45 PM
> Subject: Margaret of York and Richard III
>
>
>  
> I just found proof in Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret of York that Margaret never repudiated Richard or lost her affection for him. The English translation of her Latin epitaph (recorded before its destruction) read in part, "Sister of their serene highnesses Edward and Richard, kings of England, wife of the illustrious Charles, Duke of Burgundy . . . , a marvellous [sic] and devoted Patroness of Justice, of Religion and Reform, the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord 1503. Pray for her."
>
> Now if I could only find proof that their mother Cecily felt the same way.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

As I said, Eileen, it's just my take. But it reminded me of a bequest in the family where one person had spent years lusting after an antique set of china (not because she loved it, but because it was worth a lot). And didn't the Will leave her one small dish...and give the rest to someone worthier? Or a friend who willed someone he didn't especially like his "rolex" (no typo). Yep. It was a knock-off; Bill had already given the Real Deal to someone else while living....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: Margaret of York and Richard III


 
Thanks for that Judy....I would not have thought of that until you pointed it out...and it does make perfect sense....Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, read the rest of Cecily's bequests. She may well have "spoken her mind," in a somewhat round-about way.... 
>
> "...Also I give to my lord prince a bed of arras of the wheel of fortune..." 
>
> Hmmm. The Wheel of Fortune? Nice. And to the de la Poles:
>
>  
> "...Also I give to my
> son of Suffolk a cloth of estate and 3 cushions of purple damask cloth of gold... ."
>
> Purple cloth of gold? Pretty, um, regal gift....
>
> Judy
> My take, anyway ;-)    
>
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:45 PM
> Subject: Margaret of York and Richard III
>
>
>  
> I just found proof in Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret of York that Margaret never repudiated Richard or lost her affection for him. The English translation of her Latin epitaph (recorded before its destruction) read in part, "Sister of their serene highnesses Edward and Richard, kings of England, wife of the illustrious Charles, Duke of Burgundy . . . , a marvellous [sic] and devoted Patroness of Justice, of Religion and Reform, the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord 1503. Pray for her."
>
> Now if I could only find proof that their mother Cecily felt the same way.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Judy...It's often someone's 'take' on here that may well hit the nail on the head. Everybody needs to keep coming up with them (their 'takes'). I often read something on here and I think..Whey didnt I think of that!!
I thought the exact same thing with Roslyn's take on the kitchen maid story...i.e. Anne disguised herself as a kitchen maid and made her way to Richard....It makes such sense! Ive read many theories on this story but none of them ring true. Someone's 'take' on this forum probably has nailed it.
bestest wishes Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> As I said, Eileen, it's just my take. But it reminded me of a bequest in the family where one person had spent years lusting after an antique set of china (not because she loved it, but because it was worth a lot). And didn't the Will leave her one small dish...and give the rest to someone worthier? Or a friend who willed someone he didn't especially like his "rolex" (no typo). Yep. It was a knock-off; Bill had already given the Real Deal to someone else while living....
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of York and Richard III
>
>
>  
> Thanks for that Judy....I would not have thought of that until you pointed it out...and it does make perfect sense....Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol, read the rest of Cecily's bequests. She may well have "spoken her mind," in a somewhat round-about way.... 
> >
> > "...Also I give to my lord prince a bed of arras of the wheel of fortune..." 
> >
> > Hmmm. The Wheel of Fortune? Nice. And to the de la Poles:
> >
> >  
> > "...Also I give to my
> > son of Suffolk a cloth of estate and 3 cushions of purple damask cloth of gold... ."
> >
> > Purple cloth of gold? Pretty, um, regal gift....
> >
> > Judy
> > My take, anyway ;-)    
> >
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:45 PM
> > Subject: Margaret of York and Richard III
> >
> >
> >  
> > I just found proof in Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret of York that Margaret never repudiated Richard or lost her affection for him. The English translation of her Latin epitaph (recorded before its destruction) read in part, "Sister of their serene highnesses Edward and Richard, kings of England, wife of the illustrious Charles, Duke of Burgundy . . . , a marvellous [sic] and devoted Patroness of Justice, of Religion and Reform, the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord 1503. Pray for her."
> >
> > Now if I could only find proof that their mother Cecily felt the same way.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's just that history requires hard facts. But that said, I recall a story regarding an archeological dig. Viking artifacts, and one item - well, no one could figure out what the heck it was. Weird curved thing with little holes. But the child of one of the researchers looked at it and Said: "I think it's an ice skate." Sure enough, when leather thongs were laced through the holes, the thing could be fastened to the bottom of a shoe or boot and worked like a dream.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Margaret of York and Richard III


 
Judy...It's often someone's 'take' on here that may well hit the nail on the head. Everybody needs to keep coming up with them (their 'takes'). I often read something on here and I think..Whey didnt I think of that!!
I thought the exact same thing with Roslyn's take on the kitchen maid story...i.e. Anne disguised herself as a kitchen maid and made her way to Richard....It makes such sense! Ive read many theories on this story but none of them ring true. Someone's 'take' on this forum probably has nailed it.
bestest wishes Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> As I said, Eileen, it's just my take. But it reminded me of a bequest in the family where one person had spent years lusting after an antique set of china (not because she loved it, but because it was worth a lot). And didn't the Will leave her one small dish...and give the rest to someone worthier? Or a friend who willed someone he didn't especially like his "rolex" (no typo). Yep. It was a knock-off; Bill had already given the Real Deal to someone else while living....
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of York and Richard III
>
>
>  
> Thanks for that Judy....I would not have thought of that until you pointed it out...and it does make perfect sense....Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol, read the rest of Cecily's bequests. She may well have "spoken her mind," in a somewhat round-about way....à
> >
> > "...Also I give to my lord prince a bed of arras of the wheel of fortune..."à
> >
> > Hmmm. The Wheel of Fortune? Nice. And to the de la Poles:
> >
> > à
> > "...Also I give to my
> > son of Suffolk a cloth of estate and 3 cushions of purple damask cloth of gold... ."
> >
> > Purple cloth of gold? Pretty, um, regal gift....
> >
> > Judy
> > My take, anyway ;-) à à
> >
> > à
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:45 PM
> > Subject: Margaret of York and Richard III
> >
> >
> > à
> > I just found proof in Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret of York that Margaret never repudiated Richard or lost her affection for him. The English translation of her Latin epitaph (recorded before its destruction) read in part, "Sister of their serene highnesses Edward and Richard, kings of England, wife of the illustrious Charles, Duke of Burgundy . . . , a marvellous [sic] and devoted Patroness of Justice, of Religion and Reform, the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord 1503. Pray for her."
> >
> > Now if I could only find proof that their mother Cecily felt the same way.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I can just see the stonecarvers now: "But, Your Grace, if we add 'And may the murderin' usurper and general incompetent Henry Tydder, pretender to the throne of England, die of horrible wracking of the bowels and be lost to the mercy of God unto the end of tyme,' we'll need another apse."

The more I know about Margaret of York, the more I like her. She seems to have based her loyalties on the basic worth of people around her, and to have stuck to them through numerous political vicissitudes.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> I just found proof in Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret of York that Margaret never repudiated Richard or lost her affection for him. The English translation of her Latin epitaph (recorded before its destruction) read in part, "Sister of their serene highnesses Edward and Richard, kings of England, wife of the illustrious Charles, Duke of Burgundy . . . , a marvellous [sic] and devoted Patroness of Justice, of Religion and Reform, the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord 1503. Pray for her."
>
> Now if I could only find proof that their mother Cecily felt the same way.
>
> Carol
>

Its a shame then that some historians have based their versions of Richard on some old rubbish that More wrote. They should have taken a look at this forum instead...:0)
Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> It's just that history requires hard facts.
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Margaret of York and Richard III
>
>
>  
> Judy...It's often someone's 'take' on here that may well hit the nail on the head. Everybody needs to keep coming up with them (their 'takes'). I often read something on here and I think..Whey didnt I think of that!!
> I thought the exact same thing with Roslyn's take on the kitchen maid story...i.e. Anne disguised herself as a kitchen maid and made her way to Richard....It makes such sense! Ive read many theories on this story but none of them ring true. Someone's 'take' on this forum probably has nailed it.
> bestest wishes Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > As I said, Eileen, it's just my take. But it reminded me of a bequest in the family where one person had spent years lusting after an antique set of china (not because she loved it, but because it was worth a lot). And didn't the Will leave her one small dish...and give the rest to someone worthier? Or a friend who willed someone he didn't especially like his "rolex" (no typo). Yep. It was a knock-off; Bill had already given the Real Deal to someone else while living....
> >
> > Judy
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: Margaret of York and Richard III
> >
> >
> >  
> > Thanks for that Judy....I would not have thought of that until you pointed it out...and it does make perfect sense....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol, read the rest of Cecily's bequests. She may well have "spoken her mind," in a somewhat round-about way.... 
> > >
> > > "...Also I give to my lord prince a bed of arras of the wheel of fortune..." 
> > >
> > > Hmmm. The Wheel of Fortune? Nice. And to the de la Poles:
> > >
> > >  
> > > "...Also I give to my
> > > son of Suffolk a cloth of estate and 3 cushions of purple damask cloth of gold... ."
> > >
> > > Purple cloth of gold? Pretty, um, regal gift....
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > My take, anyway ;-)    
> > >
> > >  
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:45 PM
> > > Subject: Margaret of York and Richard III
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > I just found proof in Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret of York that Margaret never repudiated Richard or lost her affection for him. The English translation of her Latin epitaph (recorded before its destruction) read in part, "Sister of their serene highnesses Edward and Richard, kings of England, wife of the illustrious Charles, Duke of Burgundy . . . , a marvellous [sic] and devoted Patroness of Justice, of Religion and Reform, the twenty-third day of November in the year of our Lord 1503. Pray for her."
> > >
> > > Now if I could only find proof that their mother Cecily felt the same way.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
Judy wrote:

> Carol, read the rest of Cecily's bequests. She may well have "spoken her mind," in a somewhat round-about way.... 
>
> "...Also I give to my lord prince a bed of arras of the wheel of fortune..." 
>
> Hmmm. The Wheel of Fortune? Nice. And to the de la Poles:
>
>  
> "...Also I give to my
> son of Suffolk a cloth of estate and 3 cushions of purple damask cloth of gold... ."
>
> Purple cloth of gold? Pretty, um, regal gift....

Carol responds:

Thanks, Judy. There's no doubt that she regarded her late husband as the rightful king of England and, by extension, herself as the rightful queen. Consequently, Christine Weightman to the contrary, she would not have accepted Henry Tudor as the rightful king of England, though for her own sake and those of her daughter Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, and her living grandchildren (including Elizabeth of York, Henry's belatedly married and belatedly crowned queen) she would have been careful to whom she expressed these thoughts. Those bequests do make that state of mind quite clear. But my concern is her thoughts, specifically, about Richard, who is not mentioned in her will for obvious reasons.

What did she will to Elizabeth of York, by the way?

Carol

To Elizabeth, a diamond cross with crosslets.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Margaret of York and Richard III


 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
Judy wrote:

> Carol, read the rest of Cecily's bequests. She may well have "spoken her mind," in a somewhat round-about way.... 
>
> "...Also I give to my lord prince a bed of arras of the wheel of fortune..." 
>
> Hmmm. The Wheel of Fortune? Nice. And to the de la Poles:
>
>  
> "...Also I give to my
> son of Suffolk a cloth of estate and 3 cushions of purple damask cloth of gold... ."
>
> Purple cloth of gold? Pretty, um, regal gift....

Carol responds:

Thanks, Judy. There's no doubt that she regarded her late husband as the rightful king of England and, by extension, herself as the rightful queen. Consequently, Christine Weightman to the contrary, she would not have accepted Henry Tudor as the rightful king of England, though for her own sake and those of her daughter Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk, and her living grandchildren (including Elizabeth of York, Henry's belatedly married and belatedly crowned queen) she would have been careful to whom she expressed these thoughts. Those bequests do make that state of mind quite clear. But my concern is her thoughts, specifically, about Richard, who is not mentioned in her will for obvious reasons.

What did she will to Elizabeth of York, by the way?

Carol

Re the provisions for Elizabeth of York in Cecily Neville's will, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> To Elizabeth, a diamond cross with crosslets.

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. So, an unexceptionable rich yet pious gift for her granddaughter, the usurper's wife through no fault of her own. I wonder if it was intended as consolation of just an appropriate gift into which nothing could be read (unlike the Wheel of Fortune coverlet for the prince (Arthur?). Any other speculative interpretations? Just for fun, of course.

Carol

I wonder if it was a favourite piece of Cecily's jewellery, maybe given to her by her husband. Perhaps Elizabeth had admired it. A link to her Plantagenet/Neville relations...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Re the provisions for Elizabeth of York in Cecily Neville's will, Judy Thomson wrote:
> >
> > To Elizabeth, a diamond cross with crosslets.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much. So, an unexceptionable rich yet pious gift for her granddaughter, the usurper's wife through no fault of her own. I wonder if it was intended as consolation of just an appropriate gift into which nothing could be read (unlike the Wheel of Fortune coverlet for the prince (Arthur?). Any other speculative interpretations? Just for fun, of course.
>
> Carol
>

"Baby girl, you are gonna need WAY more than just one cross, poor lamb."

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Re the provisions for Elizabeth of York in Cecily Neville's will, Judy Thomson wrote:
> >
> > To Elizabeth, a diamond cross with crosslets.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks very much. So, an unexceptionable rich yet pious gift for her granddaughter, the usurper's wife through no fault of her own. I wonder if it was intended as consolation of just an appropriate gift into which nothing could be read (unlike the Wheel of Fortune coverlet for the prince (Arthur?). Any other speculative interpretations? Just for fun, of course.
>
> Carol
>

Cecily's will is a fascinating document, but it is difficult to know how to read any subtext. No, she didn't mention Richard, but then she didn't mention any other members of the family who were political dynamite - eg no mention of her youngest daughter Margaret of Burgundy or of her grandson Warwick. It seems to have been a general rule in those days, anyway, that you didn't mention in your will family members who had been condemned as traitors, at any rate not if that will was to be registered (there are exceptions, but these are very rare). But that's not to say, of course, that people may not have made private arrangements for their politically incorrect kin.

As far as Cecily's will is concerned, I see it as a very carefully crafted document politically. She may have been friendly with Margaret Beaufort - probably had been at one time. They patronised the same religious foundations, and Margaret even used Baynards Castle in the 1470s. But how Cecily felt about her after Bosworth we don't know. I find it hard to imagine she can have continued to feel warmly towards her. But in her will Cecily was determined to stay on the right side of the Tudor regime. She left a prayer book to Margaret Beaufort, as has been discussed, and even left King Hernry a gift, viz "all such money as is owing to me of the Customes and two cuppes of gold". One could argue as to whether leaving HT the money he owed her was a dig or not. As well as naming three executors from her own household (headed by Richard Lessy, the dean of her chapel), she also named three members of King Henry's council who were definite Tudor men: Sir Reynold Bray, Sir Thomas Lovell of Barton Bendish and Oliver King.
Why? Well we don't know the inner workings of Cecily's mind but there are perhaps clues. First, she was very clear that she wished to be buried with her late husband at Fotheringhay, which now of course belonged to King Henry. This was also a long way from Berkhamsted where she died, and it was not very common for remains to be taken very far for burial unless they were of very important persons. She may therefore have worried that this last request would not be honoured. Also, she would not have wished to do anything that would make matters any worse than they already were for her grandson Warwick or for some close associates of hers who had only just escaped condemnation for treason.
Finally, there is a hint that she may have given Richard Lessy private instructions regarding things she did not feel she could put in her public will. When Lessy made his own will three years later he headed the list of the debts he owed thus:-
"In primis I owe to the hous of saynte Johannes sayntuare in Colchester for my Ladies [ie Cecily's] dettis whom god pardonn xxj li the which summe I will be made and spent to the bieng of v chales to be geuen to the saide hous of colchestre to praie for my Ladie and for me as procuratoure of this benifete so that the chalesis be Clerely worth xxj li beside the facioun [ie besides the cost of manufacture?] the which my will is: to paie for of my owne Coste And charge"
How Cecily had come to owe money to Colchester Sanctuary, that favourite haunt of Yorkist rebels, we can but speculate.

Marie





--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder if it was a favourite piece of Cecily's jewellery, maybe given to her by her husband. Perhaps Elizabeth had admired it. A link to her Plantagenet/Neville relations...Eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Re the provisions for Elizabeth of York in Cecily Neville's will, Judy Thomson wrote:
> > >
> > > To Elizabeth, a diamond cross with crosslets.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks very much. So, an unexceptionable rich yet pious gift for her granddaughter, the usurper's wife through no fault of her own. I wonder if it was intended as consolation of just an appropriate gift into which nothing could be read (unlike the Wheel of Fortune coverlet for the prince (Arthur?). Any other speculative interpretations? Just for fun, of course.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>