Richard and Elizabeth of York

So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!

"bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
<snip>
> I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!

Carol responds:

You can put your mind at ease regarding that particular rumor, which Richard himself denied emphatically. He also stated, if I recall correctly, that he loved his wife. In any case, he would not have been so foolish as to marry a niece who had been declared illegitimate by Parliament along with her brothers. (His claim as king depended on the illegitimacy of Edward's children.) But because a childless king was in a precarious position, he did need to remarry once Anne died. Negotiations were in progress at the time of Bosworth for his marriage to Princess Joanna of Portugal. Richard was arranging a marriage for his niece at the same time--not to himself but to a Portuguese duke. You can find several posts on the topic by searching this forum. Annette's book, "The Maligned King," goes into detail on the subject.

Carol

The Duke was Manoel, who unexpectedly became King in 1495. Both Richard-Juana and Elizabeth-Manuel marriages would have required dispensations due to common descent from John of Gaunt.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York




"bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
<snip>
> I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!

Carol responds:

You can put your mind at ease regarding that particular rumor, which Richard himself denied emphatically. He also stated, if I recall correctly, that he loved his wife. In any case, he would not have been so foolish as to marry a niece who had been declared illegitimate by Parliament along with her brothers. (His claim as king depended on the illegitimacy of Edward's children.) But because a childless king was in a precarious position, he did need to remarry once Anne died. Negotiations were in progress at the time of Bosworth for his marriage to Princess Joanna of Portugal. Richard was arranging a marriage for his niece at the same time--not to himself but to a Portuguese duke. You can find several posts on the topic by searching this forum. Annette's book, "The Maligned King," goes into detail on the subject.

Carol

Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: bandyoi
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York



So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!

Thanks!

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
>

If you are a member, I might also want to look at my article 'Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony' (under surname Barnfield) in the 2007 Ricardian, which deals with all the matrimonial controversies. Actually, as far as I am aware the first person to suggest that the Howard letter was referring to the Portuguese match was Wendy Johnson in the 2005 Ricardian Bulletin. The information on the Portuguese negotiations had been available for a few years but, despite how obvious it now seems to many of us, before that no one had put the two together, so she deserves the credit.
Marie

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: bandyoi
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
>
> So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am a member of this group but not the Society. DO I have to be a member there to be able to access this article?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you are a member, I might also want to look at my article 'Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony' (under surname Barnfield) in the 2007 Ricardian, which deals with all the matrimonial controversies. Actually, as far as I am aware the first person to suggest that the Howard letter was referring to the Portuguese match was Wendy Johnson in the 2005 Ricardian Bulletin. The information on the Portuguese negotiations had been available for a few years but, despite how obvious it now seems to many of us, before that no one had put the two together, so she deserves the credit.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: bandyoi
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >
> >
> >
> > So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> > I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Bandyoi.

In the normal way, yes, but I can email you a typrescript copy if you would like.
Marie


--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I am a member of this group but not the Society. DO I have to be a member there to be able to access this article?
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > If you are a member, I might also want to look at my article 'Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony' (under surname Barnfield) in the 2007 Ricardian, which deals with all the matrimonial controversies. Actually, as far as I am aware the first person to suggest that the Howard letter was referring to the Portuguese match was Wendy Johnson in the 2005 Ricardian Bulletin. The information on the Portuguese negotiations had been available for a few years but, despite how obvious it now seems to many of us, before that no one had put the two together, so she deserves the credit.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > > Regards, Annette
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: bandyoi
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > > Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> > > I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece?  How many dispensations would that have taken, anyway? 


Sheffe




>________________________________
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
>Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
> 
>Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
>Regards, Annette
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: bandyoi
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
>Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
>I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece?  How many dispensations would that have taken, anyway? 
>
>
> Sheffe


Hi Sheffe,

It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in the first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because it was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a 'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was Elizabeth's godmother.

Marie

>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >
> >
> > 
> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> >Regards, Annette
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: bandyoi
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >
> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Thank you, Marie.  I never thought it was likely for him to fancy his niece, nor to want to wed her when he'd had enough problems already clearing the way for his marriage to Anne.

Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>>
>> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece?  How many dispensations would that have taken, anyway? 
>>
>>
>> Sheffe
>
>Hi Sheffe,
>
>It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in the first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because it was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a 'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was Elizabeth's godmother.
>
>Marie
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Annette Carson <email@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
>> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
>> >Regards, Annette
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: bandyoi
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
>> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>> >
>> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
>> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

And I almost forgot - there was also an impediment of third degree 'affinity' because Elizabeth was related to Anne Neville.
Marie

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Marie.  I never thought it was likely for him to fancy his niece, nor to want to wed her when he'd had enough problems already clearing the way for his marriage to Anne.
>
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:49 PM
> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece?  How many dispensations would that have taken, anyway? 
> >>
> >>
> >> Sheffe
> >
> >Hi Sheffe,
> >
> >It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in the first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because it was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a 'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was Elizabeth's godmother.
> >
> >Marie
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >________________________________
> >> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> >> >To:
> >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
> >> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> >> >Regards, Annette
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: bandyoi
> >> >To:
> >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> >> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >> >
> >> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> >> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I agree. It always seems to me that the idea of Richard's marrying his niece was of no benefit to anyone but Henry Tudor, whose party machine was doing everything it could to discredit Richard, and who was also, I believe, looking for a way out of his own commitment to marry Elizabeth now that he had proper backing from the French. He really didn't want to share power, and now that the dust had settled I don't believe Elizabeth or her family would have been keen for her her to become Henry's queen without proof that both her brothers were dead.
Marie

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Marie.  I never thought it was likely for him to fancy his niece, nor to want to wed her when he'd had enough problems already clearing the way for his marriage to Anne.
>
> Sheffe
>
>
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:49 PM
> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece?  How many dispensations would that have taken, anyway? 
> >>
> >>
> >> Sheffe
> >
> >Hi Sheffe,
> >
> >It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in the first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because it was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a 'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was Elizabeth's godmother.
> >
> >Marie
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >________________________________
> >> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> >> >To:
> >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
> >> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> >> >Regards, Annette
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: bandyoi
> >> >To:
> >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> >> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >> >
> >> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> >> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

It is astounding that RIII was surrounded by so many self serving evil people!!The fact they can actually manufacture such slurs in itself testaments to their twisted minds....




--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I agree. It always seems to me that the idea of Richard's marrying his niece was of no benefit to anyone but Henry Tudor, whose party machine was doing everything it could to discredit Richard, and who was also, I believe, looking for a way out of his own commitment to marry Elizabeth now that he had proper backing from the French. He really didn't want to share power, and now that the dust had settled I don't believe Elizabeth or her family would have been keen for her her to become Henry's queen without proof that both her brothers were dead.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, Marie.  I never thought it was likely for him to fancy his niece, nor to want to wed her when he'd had enough problems already clearing the way for his marriage to Anne.
> >
> > Sheffe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:49 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece?  How many dispensations would that have taken, anyway? 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sheffe
> > >
> > >Hi Sheffe,
> > >
> > >It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in the first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because it was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a 'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was Elizabeth's godmother.
> > >
> > >Marie
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >________________________________
> > >> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > >> >To:
> > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
> > >> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > 
> > >> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > >> >Regards, Annette
> > >> >
> > >> >----- Original Message -----
> > >> >From: bandyoi
> > >> >To:
> > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > >> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >> >
> > >> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> > >> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Marie, that would be awesome! Can you email it to Ishita.bandyo@... ?
That's my preferred mail!
Thank you so much!!
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Bandyoi.
>
> In the normal way, yes, but I can email you a typrescript copy if you would like.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I am a member of this group but not the Society. DO I have to be a member there to be able to access this article?
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you are a member, I might also want to look at my article 'Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony' (under surname Barnfield) in the 2007 Ricardian, which deals with all the matrimonial controversies. Actually, as far as I am aware the first person to suggest that the Howard letter was referring to the Portuguese match was Wendy Johnson in the 2005 Ricardian Bulletin. The information on the Portuguese negotiations had been available for a few years but, despite how obvious it now seems to many of us, before that no one had put the two together, so she deserves the credit.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > > > Regards, Annette
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: bandyoi
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > > > Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> > > > I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Richard was preceded by some very find propagandists, his father and the
earl of Warwick, who issued manifestoes every step of the way and weren't
above calling into question the paternity of important men. Arguably,
Titulus Regius is a fine piece of propaganda. And, of course, the Tudors did
their bit, though not everything that criticises Richard should be seen a
'propaganda'.

Karen

From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 03:20:50 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York







It is astounding that RIII was surrounded by so many self serving evil
people!!The fact they can actually manufacture such slurs in itself
testaments to their twisted minds....

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I agree. It always seems to me that the idea of Richard's marrying his niece
was of no benefit to anyone but Henry Tudor, whose party machine was doing
everything it could to discredit Richard, and who was also, I believe, looking
for a way out of his own commitment to marry Elizabeth now that he had proper
backing from the French. He really didn't want to share power, and now that the
dust had settled I don't believe Elizabeth or her family would have been keen
for her her to become Henry's queen without proof that both her brothers were
dead.
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, Marie. I never thought it was likely for him to fancy his
niece, nor to want to wed her when he'd had enough problems already clearing the
way for his marriage to Anne.
> >
> > Sheffe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:49 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >
> > >
> > >Â
> > >
> > >
> > >--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece? How many
dispensations would that have taken, anyway?ÂÂ
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sheffe
> > >
> > >Hi Sheffe,
> > >
> > >It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I
am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in the
first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because it
was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's
enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and
Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a
'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was Elizabeth's
godmother.
> > >
> > >Marie
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >________________________________
> > >> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > >> >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
> > >> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >ÂÂ
> > >> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded
to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis
Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The
History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario
surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's
death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his
niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain.
I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And
an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of
Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time
researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily
accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > >> >Regards, Annette
> > >> >
> > >> >----- Original Message -----
> > >> >From: bandyoi
> > >> >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > >> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >> >
> > >> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of
Richard compared to most of you!
> > >> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative
about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece
and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like
to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Sorry, I meant to add that manifestoes and newsletters, talking down your
enemies and talking yourself up, were standard political tools at the time.
Some people wielded them with more skill than others.

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:38:00 +1100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York






Richard was preceded by some very find propagandists, his father and the
earl of Warwick, who issued manifestoes every step of the way and weren't
above calling into question the paternity of important men. Arguably,
Titulus Regius is a fine piece of propaganda. And, of course, the Tudors did
their bit, though not everything that criticises Richard should be seen a
'propaganda'.

Karen

From: bandyoi <bandyoi@... <mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 03:20:50 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York

It is astounding that RIII was surrounded by so many self serving evil
people!!The fact they can actually manufacture such slurs in itself
testaments to their twisted minds....

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I agree. It always seems to me that the idea of Richard's marrying his niece
was of no benefit to anyone but Henry Tudor, whose party machine was doing
everything it could to discredit Richard, and who was also, I believe,
looking
for a way out of his own commitment to marry Elizabeth now that he had
proper
backing from the French. He really didn't want to share power, and now that
the
dust had settled I don't believe Elizabeth or her family would have been
keen
for her her to become Henry's queen without proof that both her brothers
were
dead.
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@>
wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, Marie. I never thought it was likely for him to fancy his
niece, nor to want to wed her when he'd had enough problems already clearing
the
way for his marriage to Anne.
> >
> > Sheffe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:49 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >
> > >
> > >Â
> > >
> > >
> > >--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@>
wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece? How many
dispensations would that have taken, anyway?ÂÂ
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Sheffe
> > >
> > >Hi Sheffe,
> > >
> > >It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I
am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in
the
first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because
it
was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's
enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and
Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a
'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was
Elizabeth's
godmother.
> > >
> > >Marie
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >________________________________
> > >> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > >> >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
> > >> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >ÂÂ
> > >> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded
to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis
Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King"
(The
History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario
surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's
death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court
his
niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and
Spain.
I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England!
(And
an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of
Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of
time
researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily
accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > >> >Regards, Annette
> > >> >
> > >> >----- Original Message -----
> > >> >From: bandyoi
> > >> >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > >> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > >> >
> > >> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of
Richard compared to most of you!
> > >> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative
about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his
niece
and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really
like
to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Of course Marie is right in saying that others went before me.What I pointed out was that mine was the first book in which the whole scenario was fully explored and published. Few authors these days rely wholly on primary sources, certainly not those who write about Richard III! I am extremely indebted to many articles published by the RIII Society and other historical organisations, and I give due credit to those authors - Marie among them - whose valuable work I cite. To the best of my knowledge I have never claimed somebody else's theory as my own, or certainly not knowingly (naturally one can't read everything that has ever been written).

In the case of the Portuguese marriage scenario, much of my own information, and Wendy Johnson's too, was derived from articles by Barrie Williams who wrote in "The Ricardian" in the early 1980s, and he is duly acknowledged in my book. Even so, part of his research was based on an erroneous/misleading Portuguese source, which having at first accepted, I was later able to correct having checked other Portuguese documents with the help of Antonio S Marques (whom I also acknowledge in my book). As a matter of interest Arthur Kincaid had already published information about the Portuguese marriage, even before Barrie Williams - as far back as 1979 in his edition of Buck!

With regard to Wendy Johnson in 2005, and indeed Jeremy Potter in "Good King Richard?" (1983), they take their research into the Portuguese sources no further than Barrie Williams. Wendy's article is about a reading of Elizabeth of York's letter, but it is one to which regrettably I do not subscribe.

For the record, let us be clear: the marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain are on record and can be accepted as fact. The existence of the letter from Elizabeth cited by Sir George Buck, and its contents, have never been verified. That's what so many theories are about.

In essence, Wendy invites us to consider that Elizabeth may have been feeling "let down and disappointed" after a succession of betrothals that came to nothing (she cites a very early betrothal to the young Duke of Bedford and her fairly recent betrothal to the Dauphin). Wendy continues, "Would she not be eager to assure herself of an honourable match elsewhere?" She then makes the suggestion that Elizabeth in her letter speaks not of marriage to Richard but of marriage to the Duke of Beja in tandem with Richard's marriage to the Holy Princess, and continues "Elizabeth's concern that her aunt, the queen, had not yet died ... could well be an indication that the Portuguese had only agreed to the marriage should *both* parts of the agreement be adhered to. In other words, until Richard became a widower he could not enter into his part of the agreement."

If memory serves, and I'm afraid I don't have time to re-read all these articles, but I believe a similar suggestion to the first part of Wendy's argument came up in an earlier exchange of articles about Elizabeth of York's letter in "The Ricardian" in the late 1980s between Kincaid and Alison Hanham (which I acknowledge in my book), of which Wendy might not have been aware since she didn't reference it. Regarding her argument as a whole, I am not saying that Wendy is wrong, just that I have a different theory about this letter - assuming that it existed in the first place! - and my theory involves the fact that a second marriage proposal for Richard was on the table *with Spain* as an alternative, in case marriage with the Holy Princess didn't materialise.

Of course it takes years for a book to come to publication, as opposed to a few weeks for a "Bulletin" article. I had not read Wendy's article by the time my first MS of "Maligned King" had been completed and copies were out being read and critiqued pre-publication. I remember reading this discussion in the "Bulletin" between Howard Choppin, Wendy Johnson, Wendy Moorhen and Isolde Wigram, and hoping that none of them had come up with the same theory as me, then feeling reassured that they hadn't!

Having said all that, I hope I will be excused for not saying exactly what my own theory is, (a) because it would take too long, and (b) because if I give away everything in my book, no one has any reason to read it!
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York



If you are a member, I might also want to look at my article 'Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony' (under surname Barnfield) in the 2007 Ricardian, which deals with all the matrimonial controversies. Actually, as far as I am aware the first person to suggest that the Howard letter was referring to the Portuguese match was Wendy Johnson in the 2005 Ricardian Bulletin. The information on the Portuguese negotiations had been available for a few years but, despite how obvious it now seems to many of us, before that no one had put the two together, so she deserves the credit.
Marie

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: bandyoi
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
>
> So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Annette, I bought your book and it has already been shipped!! Yay! can't wait!




--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Of course Marie is right in saying that others went before me.What I pointed out was that mine was the first book in which the whole scenario was fully explored and published. Few authors these days rely wholly on primary sources, certainly not those who write about Richard III! I am extremely indebted to many articles published by the RIII Society and other historical organisations, and I give due credit to those authors - Marie among them - whose valuable work I cite. To the best of my knowledge I have never claimed somebody else's theory as my own, or certainly not knowingly (naturally one can't read everything that has ever been written).
>
> In the case of the Portuguese marriage scenario, much of my own information, and Wendy Johnson's too, was derived from articles by Barrie Williams who wrote in "The Ricardian" in the early 1980s, and he is duly acknowledged in my book. Even so, part of his research was based on an erroneous/misleading Portuguese source, which having at first accepted, I was later able to correct having checked other Portuguese documents with the help of Antonio S Marques (whom I also acknowledge in my book). As a matter of interest Arthur Kincaid had already published information about the Portuguese marriage, even before Barrie Williams - as far back as 1979 in his edition of Buck!
>
> With regard to Wendy Johnson in 2005, and indeed Jeremy Potter in "Good King Richard?" (1983), they take their research into the Portuguese sources no further than Barrie Williams. Wendy's article is about a reading of Elizabeth of York's letter, but it is one to which regrettably I do not subscribe.
>
> For the record, let us be clear: the marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain are on record and can be accepted as fact. The existence of the letter from Elizabeth cited by Sir George Buck, and its contents, have never been verified. That's what so many theories are about.
>
> In essence, Wendy invites us to consider that Elizabeth may have been feeling "let down and disappointed" after a succession of betrothals that came to nothing (she cites a very early betrothal to the young Duke of Bedford and her fairly recent betrothal to the Dauphin). Wendy continues, "Would she not be eager to assure herself of an honourable match elsewhere?" She then makes the suggestion that Elizabeth in her letter speaks not of marriage to Richard but of marriage to the Duke of Beja in tandem with Richard's marriage to the Holy Princess, and continues "Elizabeth's concern that her aunt, the queen, had not yet died ... could well be an indication that the Portuguese had only agreed to the marriage should *both* parts of the agreement be adhered to. In other words, until Richard became a widower he could not enter into his part of the agreement."
>
> If memory serves, and I'm afraid I don't have time to re-read all these articles, but I believe a similar suggestion to the first part of Wendy's argument came up in an earlier exchange of articles about Elizabeth of York's letter in "The Ricardian" in the late 1980s between Kincaid and Alison Hanham (which I acknowledge in my book), of which Wendy might not have been aware since she didn't reference it. Regarding her argument as a whole, I am not saying that Wendy is wrong, just that I have a different theory about this letter - assuming that it existed in the first place! - and my theory involves the fact that a second marriage proposal for Richard was on the table *with Spain* as an alternative, in case marriage with the Holy Princess didn't materialise.
>
> Of course it takes years for a book to come to publication, as opposed to a few weeks for a "Bulletin" article. I had not read Wendy's article by the time my first MS of "Maligned King" had been completed and copies were out being read and critiqued pre-publication. I remember reading this discussion in the "Bulletin" between Howard Choppin, Wendy Johnson, Wendy Moorhen and Isolde Wigram, and hoping that none of them had come up with the same theory as me, then feeling reassured that they hadn't!
>
> Having said all that, I hope I will be excused for not saying exactly what my own theory is, (a) because it would take too long, and (b) because if I give away everything in my book, no one has any reason to read it!
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
>
> If you are a member, I might also want to look at my article 'Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony' (under surname Barnfield) in the 2007 Ricardian, which deals with all the matrimonial controversies. Actually, as far as I am aware the first person to suggest that the Howard letter was referring to the Portuguese match was Wendy Johnson in the 2005 Ricardian Bulletin. The information on the Portuguese negotiations had been available for a few years but, despite how obvious it now seems to many of us, before that no one had put the two together, so she deserves the credit.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: bandyoi
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >
> >
> >
> > So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> > I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen, of course Richard was not a saint, just a man of his time. But at least we can absolve him of one of his alleged perfidy!

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Richard was preceded by some very find propagandists, his father and the
> earl of Warwick, who issued manifestoes every step of the way and weren't
> above calling into question the paternity of important men. Arguably,
> Titulus Regius is a fine piece of propaganda. And, of course, the Tudors did
> their bit, though not everything that criticises Richard should be seen a
> 'propaganda'.
>
> Karen
>
> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 03:20:50 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is astounding that RIII was surrounded by so many self serving evil
> people!!The fact they can actually manufacture such slurs in itself
> testaments to their twisted minds....
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree. It always seems to me that the idea of Richard's marrying his niece
> was of no benefit to anyone but Henry Tudor, whose party machine was doing
> everything it could to discredit Richard, and who was also, I believe, looking
> for a way out of his own commitment to marry Elizabeth now that he had proper
> backing from the French. He really didn't want to share power, and now that the
> dust had settled I don't believe Elizabeth or her family would have been keen
> for her her to become Henry's queen without proof that both her brothers were
> dead.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you, Marie. I never thought it was likely for him to fancy his
> niece, nor to want to wed her when he'd had enough problems already clearing the
> way for his marriage to Anne.
> > >
> > > Sheffe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > >To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:49 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece? How many
> dispensations would that have taken, anyway?ÂÂ
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Sheffe
> > > >
> > > >Hi Sheffe,
> > > >
> > > >It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I
> am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in the
> first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because it
> was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's
> enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and
> Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a
> 'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was Elizabeth's
> godmother.
> > > >
> > > >Marie
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >________________________________
> > > >> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > > >> >To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
> > > >> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >ÂÂ
> > > >> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded
> to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis
> Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The
> History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario
> surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's
> death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his
> niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain.
> I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And
> an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of
> Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time
> researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily
> accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > > >> >Regards, Annette
> > > >> >
> > > >> >----- Original Message -----
> > > >> >From: bandyoi
> > > >> >To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > > >> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > > >> >
> > > >> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of
> Richard compared to most of you!
> > > >> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative
> about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece
> and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like
> to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is an excellent book! Enjoy!
Vickie


From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York

 

Annette, I bought your book and it has already been shipped!! Yay! can't wait!

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Of course Marie is right in saying that others went before me.What I pointed out was that mine was the first book in which the whole scenario was fully explored and published. Few authors these days rely wholly on primary sources, certainly not those who write about Richard III! I am extremely indebted to many articles published by the RIII Society and other historical organisations, and I give due credit to those authors - Marie among them - whose valuable work I cite. To the best of my knowledge I have never claimed somebody else's theory as my own, or certainly not knowingly (naturally one can't read everything that has ever been written).
>
> In the case of the Portuguese marriage scenario, much of my own information, and Wendy Johnson's too, was derived from articles by Barrie Williams who wrote in "The Ricardian" in the early 1980s, and he is duly acknowledged in my book. Even so, part of his research was based on an erroneous/misleading Portuguese source, which having at first accepted, I was later able to correct having checked other Portuguese documents with the help of Antonio S Marques (whom I also acknowledge in my book). As a matter of interest Arthur Kincaid had already published information about the Portuguese marriage, even before Barrie Williams - as far back as 1979 in his edition of Buck!
>
> With regard to Wendy Johnson in 2005, and indeed Jeremy Potter in "Good King Richard?" (1983), they take their research into the Portuguese sources no further than Barrie Williams. Wendy's article is about a reading of Elizabeth of York's letter, but it is one to which regrettably I do not subscribe.
>
> For the record, let us be clear: the marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain are on record and can be accepted as fact. The existence of the letter from Elizabeth cited by Sir George Buck, and its contents, have never been verified. That's what so many theories are about.
>
> In essence, Wendy invites us to consider that Elizabeth may have been feeling "let down and disappointed" after a succession of betrothals that came to nothing (she cites a very early betrothal to the young Duke of Bedford and her fairly recent betrothal to the Dauphin). Wendy continues, "Would she not be eager to assure herself of an honourable match elsewhere?" She then makes the suggestion that Elizabeth in her letter speaks not of marriage to Richard but of marriage to the Duke of Beja in tandem with Richard's marriage to the Holy Princess, and continues "Elizabeth's concern that her aunt, the queen, had not yet died ... could well be an indication that the Portuguese had only agreed to the marriage should *both* parts of the agreement be adhered to. In other words, until Richard became a widower he could not enter into his part of the agreement."
>
> If memory serves, and I'm afraid I don't have time to re-read all these articles, but I believe a similar suggestion to the first part of Wendy's argument came up in an earlier exchange of articles about Elizabeth of York's letter in "The Ricardian" in the late 1980s between Kincaid and Alison Hanham (which I acknowledge in my book), of which Wendy might not have been aware since she didn't reference it. Regarding her argument as a whole, I am not saying that Wendy is wrong, just that I have a different theory about this letter - assuming that it existed in the first place! - and my theory involves the fact that a second marriage proposal for Richard was on the table *with Spain* as an alternative, in case marriage with the Holy Princess didn't materialise.
>
> Of course it takes years for a book to come to publication, as opposed to a few weeks for a "Bulletin" article. I had not read Wendy's article by the time my first MS of "Maligned King" had been completed and copies were out being read and critiqued pre-publication. I remember reading this discussion in the "Bulletin" between Howard Choppin, Wendy Johnson, Wendy Moorhen and Isolde Wigram, and hoping that none of them had come up with the same theory as me, then feeling reassured that they hadn't!
>
> Having said all that, I hope I will be excused for not saying exactly what my own theory is, (a) because it would take too long, and (b) because if I give away everything in my book, no one has any reason to read it!
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
>
> If you are a member, I might also want to look at my article 'Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony' (under surname Barnfield) in the 2007 Ricardian, which deals with all the matrimonial controversies. Actually, as far as I am aware the first person to suggest that the Howard letter was referring to the Portuguese match was Wendy Johnson in the 2005 Ricardian Bulletin. The information on the Portuguese negotiations had been available for a few years but, despite how obvious it now seems to many of us, before that no one had put the two together, so she deserves the credit.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: bandyoi
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >
> >
> >
> > So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> > I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The charges of murdering his wife and planning to marry his niece? It's
pretty safe to say there's no evidence Richard did either.

Karen

From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:16:00 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York






Karen, of course Richard was not a saint, just a man of his time. But at
least we can absolve him of one of his alleged perfidy!

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Richard was preceded by some very find propagandists, his father and the
> earl of Warwick, who issued manifestoes every step of the way and weren't
> above calling into question the paternity of important men. Arguably,
> Titulus Regius is a fine piece of propaganda. And, of course, the Tudors did
> their bit, though not everything that criticises Richard should be seen a
> 'propaganda'.
>
> Karen
>
> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 03:20:50 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is astounding that RIII was surrounded by so many self serving evil
> people!!The fact they can actually manufacture such slurs in itself
> testaments to their twisted minds....
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree. It always seems to me that the idea of Richard's marrying his niece
> was of no benefit to anyone but Henry Tudor, whose party machine was doing
> everything it could to discredit Richard, and who was also, I believe, looking
> for a way out of his own commitment to marry Elizabeth now that he had proper
> backing from the French. He really didn't want to share power, and now that
the
> dust had settled I don't believe Elizabeth or her family would have been keen
> for her her to become Henry's queen without proof that both her brothers were
> dead.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you, Marie. I never thought it was likely for him to fancy his
> niece, nor to want to wed her when he'd had enough problems already clearing
the
> way for his marriage to Anne.
> > >
> > > Sheffe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:49 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Sheffe <shethra77@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Was it routine at the time for anyone to marry his niece? How
many
> dispensations would that have taken, anyway?ÂÂ
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Sheffe
> > > >
> > > >Hi Sheffe,
> > > >
> > > >It was not routine but it had happened, though not in England so far as I
> am aware. It would only have required one dispensation, for consanguinity in
the
> first and second degrees, but this may have been difficult to obtain because
it
> was a scandalously close relationship - just look at the capital Richard's
> enemies were able to make of the idea. Also, in the case of Richard and
> Elizabeth a further dispensation would have been needed because there was a
> 'spiritual impediment' owing to the fact that Richard's mother was Elizabeth's
> godmother.
> > > >
> > > >Marie
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >________________________________
> > > >> > From: Annette Carson <email@>
> > > >> >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:09 AM
> > > >> >Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >ÂÂ
> > > >> >Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded
> to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis
> Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King"
(The
> History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario
> surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's
> death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court
his
> niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and
Spain.
> I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England!
(And
> an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of
> Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of
time
> researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily
> accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > > >> >Regards, Annette
> > > >> >
> > > >> >----- Original Message -----
> > > >> >From: bandyoi
> > > >> >To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > > >> >Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> > > >> >
> > > >> >So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters
of
> Richard compared to most of you!
> > > >> >I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative
> about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece
> and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really
like
> to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie writes:

Annette,I would be the first to acknowledge that in your book you give full and generous credit to the authors of the articles, etc, that formed the basis of your book. And also the first to acknowledge the enormous role your book has played in disseminating this knowledge to a wider audience.

But it is a big world and I was simply offering an additional source, and giving a plug to Wendy Johnson whose contribution to the debate on the Elizabeth of York marriage is rarely acknowledged, perhaps because it was written in the Bulletin rather than a more academic publication. Despite all you say, she remains so far as I am aware the first person to make what now seems to be the obvious connection between the Buck letter and the Portuguese marriage plans. Kincaid did indeed refer to the Portuguese marriage negotiations in one of his end notes (p. 306), and he may have been the first writer in the English language to do so, but the revelation of this to the English-speaking world, hugely important though it is, was not the subject of my post. Whilst evidently Wendy could not have made the link without knowing of the Portuguese marriage proposal, many years had passed between the more extensive exposition of the Portuguese business in Barrie Williams' Ricardian article of March 1983 and Wendy's submission in the Spring 2005 Ricardian Bulletin.

Kincaid had not made the link in 1979; he assumed that the Portuguese marriage plan was formed after Richard was forced to abandon the plan to marry Elizabeth himself. Alison Hanham did not suggest it in her article in the Ricardian of June 1987; her view was that the letter did not refer to any marriage at all (which is pressumably why Wendy did not reference it). That you do not agree with every word of Wendy's article, or all the detail of the scenario she suggested, does not affect the main point, which is that she made the link. I accept that you had not read her article before publication, perhaps you were not a member of the Society at that time, but I took up the idea in my 2007 Ricardian article, which you did make use of in your first edition (for which I am eternally grateful). That of course is not to say that you would not have - or had not - made the link between the two things quite independently of any existing written source, just that Wendy had got there before either of us.

I would also like to put in a word of support for Barrie Williams. Yes, he probably picked up the reference from Kincaid's note, and yes he did not get it all right, but in setting out the theory at length he was a pioneer and saved the information from obscurity; it is almost inevitable that others have been able to add to and refine our knowledge of the subject since because that is how things work; each individual who has contributed is an essential link in the chain: we stand on each other's shoulders, don't we? BW also very kindly donated to the Society Papers Library a copy of the Portuguese monastery document together with his own translation, so the full contents are consequently available to all Society members whether they speak Portuguese or not.

Marie



--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Of course Marie is right in saying that others went before me.What I pointed out was that mine was the first book in which the whole scenario was fully explored and published. Few authors these days rely wholly on primary sources, certainly not those who write about Richard III! I am extremely indebted to many articles published by the RIII Society and other historical organisations, and I give due credit to those authors - Marie among them - whose valuable work I cite. To the best of my knowledge I have never claimed somebody else's theory as my own, or certainly not knowingly (naturally one can't read everything that has ever been written).

>
> In the case of the Portuguese marriage scenario, much of my own information, and Wendy Johnson's too, was derived from articles by Barrie Williams who wrote in "The Ricardian" in the early 1980s, and he is duly acknowledged in my book. Even so, part of his research was based on an erroneous/misleading Portuguese source, which having at first accepted, I was later able to correct having checked other Portuguese documents with the help of Antonio S Marques (whom I also acknowledge in my book). As a matter of interest Arthur Kincaid had already published information about the Portuguese marriage, even before Barrie Williams - as far back as 1979 in his edition of Buck!
>
> With regard to Wendy Johnson in 2005, and indeed Jeremy Potter in "Good King Richard?" (1983), they take their research into the Portuguese sources no further than Barrie Williams. Wendy's article is about a reading of Elizabeth of York's letter, but it is one to which regrettably I do not subscribe.
>
> For the record, let us be clear: the marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain are on record and can be accepted as fact. The existence of the letter from Elizabeth cited by Sir George Buck, and its contents, have never been verified. That's what so many theories are about.
>
> In essence, Wendy invites us to consider that Elizabeth may have been feeling "let down and disappointed" after a succession of betrothals that came to nothing (she cites a very early betrothal to the young Duke of Bedford and her fairly recent betrothal to the Dauphin). Wendy continues, "Would she not be eager to assure herself of an honourable match elsewhere?" She then makes the suggestion that Elizabeth in her letter speaks not of marriage to Richard but of marriage to the Duke of Beja in tandem with Richard's marriage to the Holy Princess, and continues "Elizabeth's concern that her aunt, the queen, had not yet died ... could well be an indication that the Portuguese had only agreed to the marriage should *both* parts of the agreement be adhered to. In other words, until Richard became a widower he could not enter into his part of the agreement."
>
> If memory serves, and I'm afraid I don't have time to re-read all these articles, but I believe a similar suggestion to the first part of Wendy's argument came up in an earlier exchange of articles about Elizabeth of York's letter in "The Ricardian" in the late 1980s between Kincaid and Alison Hanham (which I acknowledge in my book), of which Wendy might not have been aware since she didn't reference it. Regarding her argument as a whole, I am not saying that Wendy is wrong, just that I have a different theory about this letter - assuming that it existed in the first place! - and my theory involves the fact that a second marriage proposal for Richard was on the table *with Spain* as an alternative, in case marriage with the Holy Princess didn't materialise.
>
> Of course it takes years for a book to come to publication, as opposed to a few weeks for a "Bulletin" article. I had not read Wendy's article by the time my first MS of "Maligned King" had been completed and copies were out being read and critiqued pre-publication. I remember reading this discussion in the "Bulletin" between Howard Choppin, Wendy Johnson, Wendy Moorhen and Isolde Wigram, and hoping that none of them had come up with the same theory as me, then feeling reassured that they hadn't!
>
> Having said all that, I hope I will be excused for not saying exactly what my own theory is, (a) because it would take too long, and (b) because if I give away everything in my book, no one has any reason to read it!
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Elizabeth of York
>
>
>
> If you are a member, I might also want to look at my article 'Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce: Richard III and Matrimony' (under surname Barnfield) in the 2007 Ricardian, which deals with all the matrimonial controversies. Actually, as far as I am aware the first person to suggest that the Howard letter was referring to the Portuguese match was Wendy Johnson in the 2005 Ricardian Bulletin. The information on the Portuguese negotiations had been available for a few years but, despite how obvious it now seems to many of us, before that no one had put the two together, so she deserves the credit.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello "bandyoi" and welcome from me! I see Carol has already responded to your post with a very accurate summary of Richard's position vis-a-vis Elizabeth of York. She is referring to my "Richard III: The Maligned King" (The History Press, 2008) which was the first book fully to explore the scenario surrounding the anti-Richard whispering campaign at the time of Queen Anne's death, how it misrepresented the facts, and how foolish he would be to court his niece and at the same time pursue marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain. I even provide a portrait of Princess Joana, potentially Queen of England! (And an image of Duke Manuel for good measure.) You will also find my analysis of Elizabeth of York's famous letter. It was something I spent a good deal of time researching, because (like you) I felt it was a slur which had been lazily accepted without proper analysis by generations of historians.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: bandyoi
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:31 AM
> > Subject: Richard and Elizabeth of York
> >
> >
> >
> > So I am a newbie to this group and woefully undereducated in matters of Richard compared to most of you!
> > I think I am one of those people who hates to hear anything negative about RIII and the worse of it is the rumor of his wanting to marry his niece and poisoning his wife!!! Is there any truth to that at all? I would really like to find out and put my mind to rest! This wondering is killing me!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>