New images of Henry VII & VIII

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20003806%c2%a0

Thank you for very interesting link....shows that Fat Henry did have a softer side to him once...

I see Henry Vll is pictured wearing the crown he stole from King Richard....

Eileen

--- In , Richard Lewis <greyowl55@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20003806%c2%a0
>
>
>

Just thinking..you can put a crown on a man's head, give him a coronation and a magnificent tomb but you cannot make him noble...
Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for very interesting link....shows that Fat Henry did have a softer side to him once...
>
> I see Henry Vll is pictured wearing the crown he stole from King Richard....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Richard Lewis <greyowl55@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20003806%c2%a0
> >
> >
> >
>

No trouble. I live on the route that H7 took from Pembroke to Bosworth (Llanbadarn) so there are quite often a few snippets here on this subject. I often dream of visiting the National Library here and finding E4's codicil! Also within spitting distance of Ludlow, the Marches and many Roses events.

Perhaps I should introduce myself - I have been a member on here in the past and of the R3 Soc, and a student of medieval history for all my adult life.

My interest - pursuit of the unobtainable truth on this subject. With a bit of healthy prejudice in favour of our hero, of course. I originally read Kendall in the early 70's and despite all I have read since, it is still the most authoritative history I have read.

Richard (not HIM, me).

Yes...a wonderful book and my bible on Richard's life for a very long time...but I have always been at a loss as to why Kendall stated that Edward V was suffering from a "chronic bone disease"...He does not state a reference as to where he came by this conclusion...I know that Dr Argentine visited the princes in the Tower but I cannot recall the Dr being quoted as saying that Edward had a bone disease....but rather, as it seems to me, suffering from depression, understandably, and fearing death was staring him in the face.

Of course one of the skulls in the blasted Urn has a diseased jawbone...But surely Kendall did not base his assumption of Edward having the bone disease on that...as he was fuly aware that the Urn bones are questionable. Puzzling...Eileen
--- In , "greyowl55" <greyowl55@...> wrote:
>
>
I originally read Kendall in the early 70's and despite all I have read since, it is still the most authoritative history I have read.
>
> Richard (not HIM, me).
>

By the time he died he had a lot of soft sides....
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for very interesting link....shows that Fat Henry did have a softer side to him once...
>
> I see Henry Vll is pictured wearing the crown he stole from King Richard....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Richard Lewis <greyowl55@> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20003806%c2%a0
> >
> >
> >
>

Quite right Marie....like a rancid marshmallow that had exploded...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> By the time he died he had a lot of soft sides....
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for very interesting link....shows that Fat Henry did have a softer side to him once...
> >
> > I see Henry Vll is pictured wearing the crown he stole from King Richard....
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Richard Lewis <greyowl55@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20003806%c2%a0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > By the time he [Henry VIII] died he had a lot of soft sides....

"EileenB" replied:
>
> Quite right Marie....like a rancid marshmallow that had exploded...

Carol adds (tongue in cheek):

According to "Horrible Histories," that was William the Conqueror!

Sorry, everyone. I couldn't resist.

Carol

Eileen wrote:
>
> Yes...a wonderful book and my bible on Richard's life for a very long time...but I have always been at a loss as to why Kendall stated that Edward V was suffering from a "chronic bone disease"...He does not state a reference as to where he came by this conclusion... <snip>
>
> Of course one of the skulls in the blasted Urn has a diseased jawbone...But surely Kendall did not base his assumption of Edward having the bone disease on that...as he was fuly aware that the Urn bones are questionable. Puzzling...Eileen

Carol responds:

I love Kendall, too, despite a few errors (e.g., that Thomas Lynom didn't marry "Jane" Shore) and a little too much imagination. I think he must have based his conclusion that Edward was suffering from a bone disease on the bones in the urn. There's no other "evidence," and he appears to believe (p. 482 of my paperback edition) that the bones really are those of the "princes."

Carol

Yes Carol I agree with you...I think Mr Kendall did incline towards that conclusion regarding the bones....but his book must be at least 45 years old....I know I am on my second copy...My first copy was ripped to shreds by a bull mastiff puppy :0/
Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Yes...a wonderful book and my bible on Richard's life for a very long time...but I have always been at a loss as to why Kendall stated that Edward V was suffering from a "chronic bone disease"...He does not state a reference as to where he came by this conclusion... <snip>
> >
> > Of course one of the skulls in the blasted Urn has a diseased jawbone...But surely Kendall did not base his assumption of Edward having the bone disease on that...as he was fuly aware that the Urn bones are questionable. Puzzling...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I love Kendall, too, despite a few errors (e.g., that Thomas Lynom didn't marry "Jane" Shore) and a little too much imagination. I think he must have based his conclusion that Edward was suffering from a bone disease on the bones in the urn. There's no other "evidence," and he appears to believe (p. 482 of my paperback edition) that the bones really are those of the "princes."
>
> Carol
>

Richard Lewis <greyowl55@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20003806%c2%a0

Carol responds:

I was thinking that the painting ought to depict Prince Arthur as well as Prince Henry, but then I remembered that Arthur predeceased his mother, so probably the boy really is Prince Henry (at a time when we can actually feel sorry for him). But the girls look a bit old to be Mary and Margaret, aged thirteen and seven at the time, and seem too calm for girls who have just lost their mother, especially in contrast to the distraught boy. Henry VII, too, seems oddly unmoved by his wife's death. Or not so oddly, given her Yorkist background and Plantagenet blood. He was prepared to replace her with mad Juana of Spain, if I recall correctly.

Carol

If I recall, PM Kendall started out as a professor of Lit; he morphed into History, but his "roots show," so to speak. Remember, he didn't have the benefit of many documents that have come to light or else been transcribed in more recent years. He did an amazing job, especially considering these handicaps - imagine wading through Harleian 433, for example, w/o guidance from subsequent researchers! I'd have bogged down, a few pages in.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:25 PM
Subject: KENDALL'S RICHARD lll (WAS: New images of Henry VII and VIII)


 
Eileen wrote:
>
> Yes...a wonderful book and my bible on Richard's life for a very long time...but I have always been at a loss as to why Kendall stated that Edward V was suffering from a "chronic bone disease"...He does not state a reference as to where he came by this conclusion... <snip>
>
> Of course one of the skulls in the blasted Urn has a diseased jawbone...But surely Kendall did not base his assumption of Edward having the bone disease on that...as he was fuly aware that the Urn bones are questionable. Puzzling...Eileen

Carol responds:

I love Kendall, too, despite a few errors (e.g., that Thomas Lynom didn't marry "Jane" Shore) and a little too much imagination. I think he must have based his conclusion that Edward was suffering from a bone disease on the bones in the urn. There's no other "evidence," and he appears to believe (p. 482 of my paperback edition) that the bones really are those of the "princes."

Carol

Kendall can't be blamed for not knowing that 'Jane' Shore married Thomas Lynom - he wrote two decades before Nicholas Barker's article identifying the real Mistress Shore as Elizabeth Lambert. He did well to note the letter allowing the marriage.
It's the same thing I was talking about in another recent post - research is a cumulative business.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Yes...a wonderful book and my bible on Richard's life for a very long time...but I have always been at a loss as to why Kendall stated that Edward V was suffering from a "chronic bone disease"...He does not state a reference as to where he came by this conclusion... <snip>
> >
> > Of course one of the skulls in the blasted Urn has a diseased jawbone...But surely Kendall did not base his assumption of Edward having the bone disease on that...as he was fuly aware that the Urn bones are questionable. Puzzling...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I love Kendall, too, despite a few errors (e.g., that Thomas Lynom didn't marry "Jane" Shore) and a little too much imagination. I think he must have based his conclusion that Edward was suffering from a bone disease on the bones in the urn. There's no other "evidence," and he appears to believe (p. 482 of my paperback edition) that the bones really are those of the "princes."
>
> Carol
>

Marie wrote:
>
> Kendall can't be blamed for not knowing that 'Jane' Shore married Thomas Lynom - he wrote two decades before Nicholas Barker's article identifying the real Mistress Shore as Elizabeth Lambert. He did well to note the letter allowing the marriage.
> It's the same thing I was talking about in another recent post - research is a cumulative business.

Carol responds:

I agree completely. I didn't meant to blame Kendall, who is by far my favorite biographer of Richard, for his errors and omissions. I just meant that his biography, though excellent, isn't perfect--mostly for the very reason you state, that the documents we have now weren't available to him (including recent assessments of the bones that he thought belonged to the "princes"). But I do think it's high time that we had another pro-Richard biography of the same caliber to counter the charges that Kendall is too novelistic and too dated--and because, as you say, research is cumulative and the new findings need to be included in a new (favorable) biography. We *don't* need another unfavorable or even ostensible neutral biography. That ground has been thoroughly covered.

Nevertheless, I do highly recommend Kendall's biography for anyone trying to get to know Richard. It's the only favorable full-length biography that we have at the moment, and it's very readable. Maybe someone will be inspired by the discoveries at Leicester to write a new one. Or how about a collaborative biography by the more scholarly and well-informed members of this list?

In the meantime, what do you think, Marie, Annette, and anyone else who has contributed to Ricardian scholarship, about an anthology of recent articles on topics of interest to the public? I have in mind the Leicester dig if it's conclusive, the bones in the urn, the Titulus Regius, the proposed marriage to Joana of Portugal, the recent discoveries about the real Bosworth Field, Richard's laws and their effect on modern political thinking, and anything of else that the public could identify with. Oh, and whatever anyone has come up with to counter Shakespeare and More. With the new interest in Richard, it's the perfect time for such a project. The Society would benefit from the profits and the general public from the knowledge.

Carol

Excuse me but aside from Kendalls biography, I do consider Annette's book to be pro-Ricardian so do not know nor understand why her book was not mentioned.  Yes, we can use another biography on Richard but after the finds on the dig are resolved.




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: KENDALL'S RICHARD lll (WAS: New images of Henry VII and VIII)


 

Marie wrote:
>
> Kendall can't be blamed for not knowing that 'Jane' Shore married Thomas Lynom - he wrote two decades before Nicholas Barker's article identifying the real Mistress Shore as Elizabeth Lambert. He did well to note the letter allowing the marriage.
> It's the same thing I was talking about in another recent post - research is a cumulative business.

Carol responds:

I agree completely. I didn't meant to blame Kendall, who is by far my favorite biographer of Richard, for his errors and omissions. I just meant that his biography, though excellent, isn't perfect--mostly for the very reason you state, that the documents we have now weren't available to him (including recent assessments of the bones that he thought belonged to the "princes"). But I do think it's high time that we had another pro-Richard biography of the same caliber to counter the charges that Kendall is too novelistic and too dated--and because, as you say, research is cumulative and the new findings need to be included in a new (favorable) biography. We *don't* need another unfavorable or even ostensible neutral biography. That ground has been thoroughly covered.

Nevertheless, I do highly recommend Kendall's biography for anyone trying to get to know Richard. It's the only favorable full-length biography that we have at the moment, and it's very readable. Maybe someone will be inspired by the discoveries at Leicester to write a new one. Or how about a collaborative biography by the more scholarly and well-informed members of this list?

In the meantime, what do you think, Marie, Annette, and anyone else who has contributed to Ricardian scholarship, about an anthology of recent articles on topics of interest to the public? I have in mind the Leicester dig if it's conclusive, the bones in the urn, the Titulus Regius, the proposed marriage to Joana of Portugal, the recent discoveries about the real Bosworth Field, Richard's laws and their effect on modern political thinking, and anything of else that the public could identify with. Oh, and whatever anyone has come up with to counter Shakespeare and More. With the new interest in Richard, it's the perfect time for such a project. The Society would benefit from the profits and the general public from the knowledge.

Carol

I agree. Annette's is a very good modern pro-Richard source for the reign itself. But there hasn't been a good full biography for a very long time. But I also agree that just now is not the time as there is so much new being discovered. Perhaps wait till the dust settles.
Marie

--- In , Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...> wrote:
>
> Excuse me but aside from Kendalls biography, I do consider Annette's book to be pro-Ricardian so do not know nor understand why her book was not mentioned.  Yes, we can use another biography on Richard but after the finds on the dig are resolved.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 7:44 PM
> Subject: Re: KENDALL'S RICHARD lll (WAS: New images of Henry VII and VIII)
>
>
>  
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > Kendall can't be blamed for not knowing that 'Jane' Shore married Thomas Lynom - he wrote two decades before Nicholas Barker's article identifying the real Mistress Shore as Elizabeth Lambert. He did well to note the letter allowing the marriage.
> > It's the same thing I was talking about in another recent post - research is a cumulative business.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree completely. I didn't meant to blame Kendall, who is by far my favorite biographer of Richard, for his errors and omissions. I just meant that his biography, though excellent, isn't perfect--mostly for the very reason you state, that the documents we have now weren't available to him (including recent assessments of the bones that he thought belonged to the "princes"). But I do think it's high time that we had another pro-Richard biography of the same caliber to counter the charges that Kendall is too novelistic and too dated--and because, as you say, research is cumulative and the new findings need to be included in a new (favorable) biography. We *don't* need another unfavorable or even ostensible neutral biography. That ground has been thoroughly covered.
>
> Nevertheless, I do highly recommend Kendall's biography for anyone trying to get to know Richard. It's the only favorable full-length biography that we have at the moment, and it's very readable. Maybe someone will be inspired by the discoveries at Leicester to write a new one. Or how about a collaborative biography by the more scholarly and well-informed members of this list?
>
> In the meantime, what do you think, Marie, Annette, and anyone else who has contributed to Ricardian scholarship, about an anthology of recent articles on topics of interest to the public? I have in mind the Leicester dig if it's conclusive, the bones in the urn, the Titulus Regius, the proposed marriage to Joana of Portugal, the recent discoveries about the real Bosworth Field, Richard's laws and their effect on modern political thinking, and anything of else that the public could identify with. Oh, and whatever anyone has come up with to counter Shakespeare and More. With the new interest in Richard, it's the perfect time for such a project. The Society would benefit from the profits and the general public from the knowledge.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...> wrote:
>
> Excuse me but aside from Kendalls biography, I do consider Annette's book to be pro-Ricardian so do not know nor understand why her book was not mentioned. Yes, we can use another biography on Richard but after the finds on the dig are resolved.
>
Carol responds:

Yes, of course. I'm a great admirer of "The Maligned King" and have recommended it to numerous people on and off this list. But I was pointing out the need for a new, full-length biography incorporating all the latest research that Kendall did not have access to. Annette would be one of my candidates for author (when she finds the time!). Marie would be another. Or John Ashdown-Hill, who is not, so far as I know, a member of this forum, which is why I didn't mention him.

I certainly agree that the biography should be published after the findings are released, but that's due in December, and I know from experience that a book incorporating research could not be written, much less edited, set in type, proofread, printed, bound, distributed, publicized, and everything else that goes into book production in so short a time. But I can't think of a better time for a new biography when at least a segment of the reading public has had its curiosity about Richard aroused and some, at least, want to know more about him.

I expect a spate of new books about Richard in the coming year. I fervently hope that those who have done their research will take advantage of the opportunity. If I weren't handicapped by age, bad eyesight, being an American, having a less than adequate background in fifteenth-century English, and being away from all things Ricardian for fifteen years, I would contribute to the project myself. As it is, all I can do is offer my services as a copyeditor and proofreader. Of course, I'd want a complimentary copy of the book as payment!

Carol

Hi, Marie & Everyone!



I just got my copy of *The Maligned King* and *Dark Sovereign* by Robert
Fripp yesterday and am quite excited by these literary riches. I’ve also
been buying print books and ebooks for my kindle furiously since the
announcement in September, so I have a *lot* of Ricardian material to plow
through – something that is going to be an enjoyable task, I am sure!



BTW, regarding a new biography of Richard, Annette states in the opening
paragraph of her preface that her book is not intended to be a biography of
Richard, but rather “a highly personal analysis of the more controversial
events of that king’s [Richard’s] reign.” That, plus the fact that Kendall’s
wonderful biography is more than 50 years old, suggests that it is not out
of line to propose a new, comprehensive biography of Richard which would
incorporate the latest discoveries.



It sounds like a pretty exciting idea to me!



Best,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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















From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 6:18 PM
To:
Subject: Re: KENDALL'S RICHARD lll (WAS: New
images of Henry VII and VIII)





I agree. Annette's is a very good modern pro-Richard source for the reign
itself. But there hasn't been a good full biography for a very long time.
But I also agree that just now is not the time as there is so much new being
discovered. Perhaps wait till the dust settles.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Brittany Wynter
<brittania97@...> wrote:
>
> Excuse me but aside from Kendalls biography, I do consider Annette's book
to be pro-Ricardian so do not know nor understand why her book was not
mentioned. Yes, we can use another biography on Richard but after the
finds on the dig are resolved.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 7:44 PM
> Subject: Re: KENDALL'S RICHARD lll (WAS: New
images of Henry VII and VIII)
>
>
> Â
>
> Marie wrote:
> >
> > Kendall can't be blamed for not knowing that 'Jane' Shore married Thomas
Lynom - he wrote two decades before Nicholas Barker's article identifying
the real Mistress Shore as Elizabeth Lambert. He did well to note the letter
allowing the marriage.
> > It's the same thing I was talking about in another recent post -
research is a cumulative business.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree completely. I didn't meant to blame Kendall, who is by far my
favorite biographer of Richard, for his errors and omissions. I just meant
that his biography, though excellent, isn't perfect--mostly for the very
reason you state, that the documents we have now weren't available to him
(including recent assessments of the bones that he thought belonged to the
"princes"). But I do think it's high time that we had another pro-Richard
biography of the same caliber to counter the charges that Kendall is too
novelistic and too dated--and because, as you say, research is cumulative
and the new findings need to be included in a new (favorable) biography. We
*don't* need another unfavorable or even ostensible neutral biography. That
ground has been thoroughly covered.
>
> Nevertheless, I do highly recommend Kendall's biography for anyone trying
to get to know Richard. It's the only favorable full-length biography that
we have at the moment, and it's very readable. Maybe someone will be
inspired by the discoveries at Leicester to write a new one. Or how about a
collaborative biography by the more scholarly and well-informed members of
this list?
>
> In the meantime, what do you think, Marie, Annette, and anyone else who
has contributed to Ricardian scholarship, about an anthology of recent
articles on topics of interest to the public? I have in mind the Leicester
dig if it's conclusive, the bones in the urn, the Titulus Regius, the
proposed marriage to Joana of Portugal, the recent discoveries about the
real Bosworth Field, Richard's laws and their effect on modern political
thinking, and anything of else that the public could identify with. Oh, and
whatever anyone has come up with to counter Shakespeare and More. With the
new interest in Richard, it's the perfect time for such a project. The
Society would benefit from the profits and the general public from the
knowledge.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>