Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-04 20:06:29
This all seems a little too far fetched for me. If he was, I think a bigger
deal would have been made about it a long time before Richard was crowned.
Lancastrian agents for Henry VI would have delved into it more to prove Henry
VI had a better claim to the throne
Victoria
{Loyaulte Me Lie{
deal would have been made about it a long time before Richard was crowned.
Lancastrian agents for Henry VI would have delved into it more to prove Henry
VI had a better claim to the throne
Victoria
{Loyaulte Me Lie{
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-05 17:06:23
hi Victoria
Far-fetched it may be, but the rumour had surfaced long before Richard
was crowned, in Edward's own lifetime, at the time of his marriage.
You have to remember that a) the Lancastrians were considered
a spent force - so much so, Margaret Beaufort the principal heir after
H6's death was often at E4's court, and E4 wanted Henry Tudor back in
England (I think so he could keep an eye on him, but
some argue - Tim, for one I believe, tho' I may be wrong - because
he really was considered no threat to E4 whatsoever. And b) because
the Lancastrians and the Yorkists sides routinely indulged in black
propaganda (cf. the notion that H6's heir wasn't his, which discussion
you just took part in).
To me H6 had a right to the throne because his father had been King -
albeit through the usurpation of H4. E4 had a right to the throne
through his father's claim and, arguably, his father's silence about
whether or not he was Edward's real father. Richard of York had a
genealogical better claim to the throne than anyone else in England
bar H6 at the time (whose right was confirmed by the Coronation and
probably Parliamentary writ as well as birth), as evidenced by the
fact that he was officially declared to be H6's heir, if memory serves.
If you meant H7, and not H6, then Tudor's right to the throne was
universally regarded as being rather poor, whatever his agents may
have liked to have discovered. Evidenced by his own declaration that
he was King by right of 'conquest', a claim cemented by his subsequent
marriage to the House of York.
If Cecily hadn't have opened her mouth and been so disapproving about
Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville, it's likely no-one would
have been any the wiser. as to whether it helped or hindered Richard's
own claim many years later is a moot point, nevertheless, the evidence
suggests Cecily brought this matter to public attention herself.
That's my admittedly simplistic take on it.
Never underestimate the tricks, the twists, the turns and the
surprises of this period. Really, you couldn't make it up! :)
Lorraine
< This all seems a little too far fetched for me. If he was, I think a
bigger deal would have been made about it a long time before Richard
was crowned. Lancastrian agents for Henry VI would have delved into it
more to prove Henry VI had a better claim to the throne >
Far-fetched it may be, but the rumour had surfaced long before Richard
was crowned, in Edward's own lifetime, at the time of his marriage.
You have to remember that a) the Lancastrians were considered
a spent force - so much so, Margaret Beaufort the principal heir after
H6's death was often at E4's court, and E4 wanted Henry Tudor back in
England (I think so he could keep an eye on him, but
some argue - Tim, for one I believe, tho' I may be wrong - because
he really was considered no threat to E4 whatsoever. And b) because
the Lancastrians and the Yorkists sides routinely indulged in black
propaganda (cf. the notion that H6's heir wasn't his, which discussion
you just took part in).
To me H6 had a right to the throne because his father had been King -
albeit through the usurpation of H4. E4 had a right to the throne
through his father's claim and, arguably, his father's silence about
whether or not he was Edward's real father. Richard of York had a
genealogical better claim to the throne than anyone else in England
bar H6 at the time (whose right was confirmed by the Coronation and
probably Parliamentary writ as well as birth), as evidenced by the
fact that he was officially declared to be H6's heir, if memory serves.
If you meant H7, and not H6, then Tudor's right to the throne was
universally regarded as being rather poor, whatever his agents may
have liked to have discovered. Evidenced by his own declaration that
he was King by right of 'conquest', a claim cemented by his subsequent
marriage to the House of York.
If Cecily hadn't have opened her mouth and been so disapproving about
Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville, it's likely no-one would
have been any the wiser. as to whether it helped or hindered Richard's
own claim many years later is a moot point, nevertheless, the evidence
suggests Cecily brought this matter to public attention herself.
That's my admittedly simplistic take on it.
Never underestimate the tricks, the twists, the turns and the
surprises of this period. Really, you couldn't make it up! :)
Lorraine
< This all seems a little too far fetched for me. If he was, I think a
bigger deal would have been made about it a long time before Richard
was crowned. Lancastrian agents for Henry VI would have delved into it
more to prove Henry VI had a better claim to the throne >
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-05 18:37:40
If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
grounds that:
1. She'd marry a Lancastrian who was killed fighting the Yorkists.
That wouldn't please the Duchess of York.
2. Elizabeth wasn't a virgin when she married Edward. Virginity
was de rigeur at that time with that class. The Virgin Mary was
popular remember.
3. It may be that there was something obnoxious about the
Woodville's broods personalities. They were arguably parvenu on
the paternal side and you have Dorset shouting his arrogant mouth
off about being more important than Richard, 1483, which was reported
to Richard by Hastings, which was bound to make someone
slightly paranoid/aggressive/militaristic with a good reputation of
service to the House of York like Richard go ballistic! And he did.
The rest is History.
I do think that hereditary claims to positions of authority are krap.
Whether Edward 4 was illegitimate & Henry 6 was legitimate was a bit
immaterial as Edward was a far better King than Henry, whose mind
seemed to be on the planet Zanussi most of the time. Meritocracy is
better, but not that the best always rise to the top.
Incidentally, accusing others of bastardy by enemies using flimsy
evidence: Clarence against Edward, Richard against Edward (copycat?)
seems like an easy way to disinherit people...
The entire bunch was descended from a founder of the Dynasty: William
the Conqueror, who was a bastard!
I agree with Lorraine about twists & turns of this lot. Were they ALL
bastards of the obnoxious type? I wouldn't trust them with a
handshake. You'd probably be missing a finger...
--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> hi Victoria
>
> Far-fetched it may be, but the rumour had surfaced long before
Richard
> was crowned, in Edward's own lifetime, at the time of his marriage.
>
> You have to remember that a) the Lancastrians were considered
> a spent force - so much so, Margaret Beaufort the principal heir
after
> H6's death was often at E4's court, and E4 wanted Henry Tudor back
in
> England (I think so he could keep an eye on him, but
> some argue - Tim, for one I believe, tho' I may be wrong - because
> he really was considered no threat to E4 whatsoever. And b) because
> the Lancastrians and the Yorkists sides routinely indulged in black
> propaganda (cf. the notion that H6's heir wasn't his, which
discussion
> you just took part in).
>
> To me H6 had a right to the throne because his father had been King
-
> albeit through the usurpation of H4. E4 had a right to the throne
> through his father's claim and, arguably, his father's silence about
> whether or not he was Edward's real father. Richard of York had a
> genealogical better claim to the throne than anyone else in England
> bar H6 at the time (whose right was confirmed by the Coronation and
> probably Parliamentary writ as well as birth), as evidenced by the
> fact that he was officially declared to be H6's heir, if memory
serves.
>
> If you meant H7, and not H6, then Tudor's right to the throne was
> universally regarded as being rather poor, whatever his agents may
> have liked to have discovered. Evidenced by his own declaration
that
> he was King by right of 'conquest', a claim cemented by his
subsequent
> marriage to the House of York.
>
> If Cecily hadn't have opened her mouth and been so disapproving
about
> Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville, it's likely no-one would
> have been any the wiser. as to whether it helped or hindered
Richard's
> own claim many years later is a moot point, nevertheless, the
evidence
> suggests Cecily brought this matter to public attention herself.
>
> That's my admittedly simplistic take on it.
>
> Never underestimate the tricks, the twists, the turns and the
> surprises of this period. Really, you couldn't make it up! :)
>
> Lorraine
>
> < This all seems a little too far fetched for me. If he was, I think
a
> bigger deal would have been made about it a long time before Richard
> was crowned. Lancastrian agents for Henry VI would have delved into
it
> more to prove Henry VI had a better claim to the throne >
grounds that:
1. She'd marry a Lancastrian who was killed fighting the Yorkists.
That wouldn't please the Duchess of York.
2. Elizabeth wasn't a virgin when she married Edward. Virginity
was de rigeur at that time with that class. The Virgin Mary was
popular remember.
3. It may be that there was something obnoxious about the
Woodville's broods personalities. They were arguably parvenu on
the paternal side and you have Dorset shouting his arrogant mouth
off about being more important than Richard, 1483, which was reported
to Richard by Hastings, which was bound to make someone
slightly paranoid/aggressive/militaristic with a good reputation of
service to the House of York like Richard go ballistic! And he did.
The rest is History.
I do think that hereditary claims to positions of authority are krap.
Whether Edward 4 was illegitimate & Henry 6 was legitimate was a bit
immaterial as Edward was a far better King than Henry, whose mind
seemed to be on the planet Zanussi most of the time. Meritocracy is
better, but not that the best always rise to the top.
Incidentally, accusing others of bastardy by enemies using flimsy
evidence: Clarence against Edward, Richard against Edward (copycat?)
seems like an easy way to disinherit people...
The entire bunch was descended from a founder of the Dynasty: William
the Conqueror, who was a bastard!
I agree with Lorraine about twists & turns of this lot. Were they ALL
bastards of the obnoxious type? I wouldn't trust them with a
handshake. You'd probably be missing a finger...
--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> hi Victoria
>
> Far-fetched it may be, but the rumour had surfaced long before
Richard
> was crowned, in Edward's own lifetime, at the time of his marriage.
>
> You have to remember that a) the Lancastrians were considered
> a spent force - so much so, Margaret Beaufort the principal heir
after
> H6's death was often at E4's court, and E4 wanted Henry Tudor back
in
> England (I think so he could keep an eye on him, but
> some argue - Tim, for one I believe, tho' I may be wrong - because
> he really was considered no threat to E4 whatsoever. And b) because
> the Lancastrians and the Yorkists sides routinely indulged in black
> propaganda (cf. the notion that H6's heir wasn't his, which
discussion
> you just took part in).
>
> To me H6 had a right to the throne because his father had been King
-
> albeit through the usurpation of H4. E4 had a right to the throne
> through his father's claim and, arguably, his father's silence about
> whether or not he was Edward's real father. Richard of York had a
> genealogical better claim to the throne than anyone else in England
> bar H6 at the time (whose right was confirmed by the Coronation and
> probably Parliamentary writ as well as birth), as evidenced by the
> fact that he was officially declared to be H6's heir, if memory
serves.
>
> If you meant H7, and not H6, then Tudor's right to the throne was
> universally regarded as being rather poor, whatever his agents may
> have liked to have discovered. Evidenced by his own declaration
that
> he was King by right of 'conquest', a claim cemented by his
subsequent
> marriage to the House of York.
>
> If Cecily hadn't have opened her mouth and been so disapproving
about
> Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville, it's likely no-one would
> have been any the wiser. as to whether it helped or hindered
Richard's
> own claim many years later is a moot point, nevertheless, the
evidence
> suggests Cecily brought this matter to public attention herself.
>
> That's my admittedly simplistic take on it.
>
> Never underestimate the tricks, the twists, the turns and the
> surprises of this period. Really, you couldn't make it up! :)
>
> Lorraine
>
> < This all seems a little too far fetched for me. If he was, I think
a
> bigger deal would have been made about it a long time before Richard
> was crowned. Lancastrian agents for Henry VI would have delved into
it
> more to prove Henry VI had a better claim to the throne >
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-05 19:41:41
And hello again David (really, I should stop all this and get some
work done! <g>):
< If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> grounds that:
>
> 1. She'd marry a Lancastrian who was killed fighting the Yorkists.
> That wouldn't please the Duchess of York.
>
> 2. Elizabeth wasn't a virgin when she married Edward. Virginity
> was de rigeur at that time with that class. The Virgin Mary was
> popular remember.>
On your second point, isn't Edward alleged to have responded to his
mum's disapproval to the effect that at least EW had proved her fertility?
Your first point is also a fair one. I know Cecily was supposed to
be pious and all that, but she strikes me, as well her contemporaries,
if that nickname 'Proud Cis' was correct, as a right old bat. I've
never quite recovered from reading about her leaving bits and bobs to
Tudor and his mother in her Will. How she could do that is beyond me.
It can't have been because she needed their patronage or even
goodwill, when, unlike Elizabeth Wydeville, she had income in her own
right, and she had grandchildren to leave her stuff to.
I know EW had to make an accommodation with Richard eventually - a
decision that came back to haunt her - but she really was in no
position to do anything other than make that accommodation. Cecily
ought to have no such necesity to bequeath personal items to the team
that brought down her last surviving son.
Richard must have been spinning in his mingle-marbled cheapo Tudor grave!
<3. It may be that there was something obnoxious about the
Woodville's broods personalities. >
So it is argued. However, Elizabeth is described in quite glowing
terms in a few contemporaneous accounts, and certainly was petitioned
on a number of occasions to intervene with the King. Hastings even
recommended that some place - Bristol? - would fare better with her
than with him over some matter, and the Tetzel (?) account of the huge
Royal Family party in EW's private rooms, where everyone bunched up
Italian-family style round a huge table and later danced, suggests
they - or at least she - had their sociable, jolly side too.
Do you remember the occasion where Edward Wydeville lost his teeth
during some skirmish or other? The subsequent correspondence on the
him losing his good looks is quite humorous, and suggests Edward
Wydeville wasn't an aloof sort of cove.
Rivers also gets a bad press, but some contemporaneous character
references for him are quite favourable, although there survives some
that aren't. He certainly treated at least one person high-handedly,
but then, so did they all (cf. Hastings with Lovell, Grey with Lovell,
Lovell w. Mrs Hastings, Buckingham w.E5,
Dorset w. Richard, Richard w. the Stanleys over the Harrington affair,
Northumberland w. Richard, Richard w. Northumberland, Clarence w.
everyone).
<you have Dorset shouting his arrogant mouth off about being more
important than Richard, 1483, which was reported
> to Richard by Hastings,>
Erm - you mentioned this earlier - are you sure about this? I know
Hastings is alleged to have written to Richard to the effect that E4
left heir and kingdom to R's safe-keeping, but I cannot recall the
commentator mentioning Dorset's 'We are so important' line. Wasn't
this reported elsewhere? I'm 30 miles away from my books again, so
can't check whether it is just reportage from Vergil or More or
someone or whether the divvy actually wrote it on some official
document or other, like the reference to his being E5's 'Uterine
Brother' was
Whatever, my impression is that Richard was spared knowledge of that
kind of remark until he was actually back in London.
<which was bound to make someone slightly
paranoid/aggressive/militaristic with a good reputation of
service to the House of York like Richard go ballistic! And he did.
The rest is History.>
I'm not sure about the 'slightly paranoid' bit <g>, and I'm not sure
when or even if Dorset's daft remarks reached Richard's ears, but I
daresay the safest place for Dorset for a time was in Sanctuary with
his Ma! :)
<I do think that hereditary claims to positions of authority are krap. >
I'm inclined to agree. Friends of mine, who know me as a staunch
republican (small 'r', and British political meaning) in Real Life
think it's absolutely hilarious that I spend my time being overly
interested in a long dead *king*, who wouldn't have given 2 screws for
me. I point out that, on the contrary, it's down to Richard that in
law, should I ever need it, I can have a trial with a jury of my
peers, my goods can't be sequestered before trial, my jury can't be
rigged etc. etc.
So hurray for King Richard!
Cough.
<Incidentally, accusing others of bastardy by enemies using flimsy
evidence: Clarence against Edward, Richard against Edward (copycat?)
seems like an easy way to disinherit people...>
I'm inclined to agree about it being a handy device. It's on a par
with accusing folk of witchcraft. and I do think EW was dealt a bad
deal on that score by R3, by my modern sensibilities. She was,
however, like the Countess of Warwick and the Duchess of York before
her at the mercy of some pretty dodgy blokes around her - her own
family's menfolk included. And things for Ew didn't improve for long
under the new regime, did it, either?
<I wouldn't trust them with a
> handshake. You'd probably be missing a finger...>
Oh, but, on the other hand, Richard was so sweet and lovely and good
and gorgeous, with a nice bum and... :)
Lorraine
work done! <g>):
< If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> grounds that:
>
> 1. She'd marry a Lancastrian who was killed fighting the Yorkists.
> That wouldn't please the Duchess of York.
>
> 2. Elizabeth wasn't a virgin when she married Edward. Virginity
> was de rigeur at that time with that class. The Virgin Mary was
> popular remember.>
On your second point, isn't Edward alleged to have responded to his
mum's disapproval to the effect that at least EW had proved her fertility?
Your first point is also a fair one. I know Cecily was supposed to
be pious and all that, but she strikes me, as well her contemporaries,
if that nickname 'Proud Cis' was correct, as a right old bat. I've
never quite recovered from reading about her leaving bits and bobs to
Tudor and his mother in her Will. How she could do that is beyond me.
It can't have been because she needed their patronage or even
goodwill, when, unlike Elizabeth Wydeville, she had income in her own
right, and she had grandchildren to leave her stuff to.
I know EW had to make an accommodation with Richard eventually - a
decision that came back to haunt her - but she really was in no
position to do anything other than make that accommodation. Cecily
ought to have no such necesity to bequeath personal items to the team
that brought down her last surviving son.
Richard must have been spinning in his mingle-marbled cheapo Tudor grave!
<3. It may be that there was something obnoxious about the
Woodville's broods personalities. >
So it is argued. However, Elizabeth is described in quite glowing
terms in a few contemporaneous accounts, and certainly was petitioned
on a number of occasions to intervene with the King. Hastings even
recommended that some place - Bristol? - would fare better with her
than with him over some matter, and the Tetzel (?) account of the huge
Royal Family party in EW's private rooms, where everyone bunched up
Italian-family style round a huge table and later danced, suggests
they - or at least she - had their sociable, jolly side too.
Do you remember the occasion where Edward Wydeville lost his teeth
during some skirmish or other? The subsequent correspondence on the
him losing his good looks is quite humorous, and suggests Edward
Wydeville wasn't an aloof sort of cove.
Rivers also gets a bad press, but some contemporaneous character
references for him are quite favourable, although there survives some
that aren't. He certainly treated at least one person high-handedly,
but then, so did they all (cf. Hastings with Lovell, Grey with Lovell,
Lovell w. Mrs Hastings, Buckingham w.E5,
Dorset w. Richard, Richard w. the Stanleys over the Harrington affair,
Northumberland w. Richard, Richard w. Northumberland, Clarence w.
everyone).
<you have Dorset shouting his arrogant mouth off about being more
important than Richard, 1483, which was reported
> to Richard by Hastings,>
Erm - you mentioned this earlier - are you sure about this? I know
Hastings is alleged to have written to Richard to the effect that E4
left heir and kingdom to R's safe-keeping, but I cannot recall the
commentator mentioning Dorset's 'We are so important' line. Wasn't
this reported elsewhere? I'm 30 miles away from my books again, so
can't check whether it is just reportage from Vergil or More or
someone or whether the divvy actually wrote it on some official
document or other, like the reference to his being E5's 'Uterine
Brother' was
Whatever, my impression is that Richard was spared knowledge of that
kind of remark until he was actually back in London.
<which was bound to make someone slightly
paranoid/aggressive/militaristic with a good reputation of
service to the House of York like Richard go ballistic! And he did.
The rest is History.>
I'm not sure about the 'slightly paranoid' bit <g>, and I'm not sure
when or even if Dorset's daft remarks reached Richard's ears, but I
daresay the safest place for Dorset for a time was in Sanctuary with
his Ma! :)
<I do think that hereditary claims to positions of authority are krap. >
I'm inclined to agree. Friends of mine, who know me as a staunch
republican (small 'r', and British political meaning) in Real Life
think it's absolutely hilarious that I spend my time being overly
interested in a long dead *king*, who wouldn't have given 2 screws for
me. I point out that, on the contrary, it's down to Richard that in
law, should I ever need it, I can have a trial with a jury of my
peers, my goods can't be sequestered before trial, my jury can't be
rigged etc. etc.
So hurray for King Richard!
Cough.
<Incidentally, accusing others of bastardy by enemies using flimsy
evidence: Clarence against Edward, Richard against Edward (copycat?)
seems like an easy way to disinherit people...>
I'm inclined to agree about it being a handy device. It's on a par
with accusing folk of witchcraft. and I do think EW was dealt a bad
deal on that score by R3, by my modern sensibilities. She was,
however, like the Countess of Warwick and the Duchess of York before
her at the mercy of some pretty dodgy blokes around her - her own
family's menfolk included. And things for Ew didn't improve for long
under the new regime, did it, either?
<I wouldn't trust them with a
> handshake. You'd probably be missing a finger...>
Oh, but, on the other hand, Richard was so sweet and lovely and good
and gorgeous, with a nice bum and... :)
Lorraine
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-05 20:06:51
--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> And hello again David (really, I should stop all this and get some
> work done! <g>):
Yes, those dishes are piling up (g.)
>
> On your second point, isn't Edward alleged to have responded to his
> mum's disapproval to the effect that at least EW had proved her
fertility?
I doubt if Edward, George or Richard really gave a stuff what anyone
thought.
>
> if that nickname 'Proud Cis' was correct, as a right old bat. I've
> never quite recovered from reading about her leaving bits and bobs
to> Tudor and his mother in her Will.
Maybe she was senile or doing the ritual creep around monarchy.
EW was certainly pretty, but on the make...no doubt.
>
> Erm - you mentioned this earlier - are you sure about this? I know
> Hastings is alleged to have written to Richard to the effect that E4
> left heir and kingdom to R's safe-keeping, but I cannot recall the
> commentator mentioning Dorset's 'We are so important' line. Wasn't
> this reported elsewhere? I'm 30 miles away from my books again, so
> can't check whether it is just reportage from Vergil or More or
> someone or whether the divvy actually wrote it on some official
> document or other.
I'm sure it's there somewhere. but if in More of course you don't
believe it, even though it gives Richard a valid reason for eruption.
More probably had collecetd all he could about Richard with the
intention to 'cut & paste' later. Remember his work was
'unfinished' & it really is unfair to judge him on a draft copy
which he didn't intend for publication. He may've jettisoned some
of the crap: Rous.
> I'm not sure about the 'slightly paranoid' bit <g>,
I would've been a bit paranoid surrounded by people like
Buckingham, Stanley, Morton, Tudor in the wings & Edward V (part
Woodvile, half brother to arrogant upstart Dorset.)
I enjoy studying the way people are & interact.
>
> <I wouldn't trust them with a
> > handshake. You'd probably be missing a finger...>
>
> Oh, but, on the other hand, Richard was so sweet and lovely and good
> and gorgeous, with a nice bum and... :)
I think we've hit a gender issue here. Personally, I'd say all those
things about Elizabeth of York & more...a nice pair of...lips!
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> And hello again David (really, I should stop all this and get some
> work done! <g>):
Yes, those dishes are piling up (g.)
>
> On your second point, isn't Edward alleged to have responded to his
> mum's disapproval to the effect that at least EW had proved her
fertility?
I doubt if Edward, George or Richard really gave a stuff what anyone
thought.
>
> if that nickname 'Proud Cis' was correct, as a right old bat. I've
> never quite recovered from reading about her leaving bits and bobs
to> Tudor and his mother in her Will.
Maybe she was senile or doing the ritual creep around monarchy.
EW was certainly pretty, but on the make...no doubt.
>
> Erm - you mentioned this earlier - are you sure about this? I know
> Hastings is alleged to have written to Richard to the effect that E4
> left heir and kingdom to R's safe-keeping, but I cannot recall the
> commentator mentioning Dorset's 'We are so important' line. Wasn't
> this reported elsewhere? I'm 30 miles away from my books again, so
> can't check whether it is just reportage from Vergil or More or
> someone or whether the divvy actually wrote it on some official
> document or other.
I'm sure it's there somewhere. but if in More of course you don't
believe it, even though it gives Richard a valid reason for eruption.
More probably had collecetd all he could about Richard with the
intention to 'cut & paste' later. Remember his work was
'unfinished' & it really is unfair to judge him on a draft copy
which he didn't intend for publication. He may've jettisoned some
of the crap: Rous.
> I'm not sure about the 'slightly paranoid' bit <g>,
I would've been a bit paranoid surrounded by people like
Buckingham, Stanley, Morton, Tudor in the wings & Edward V (part
Woodvile, half brother to arrogant upstart Dorset.)
I enjoy studying the way people are & interact.
>
> <I wouldn't trust them with a
> > handshake. You'd probably be missing a finger...>
>
> Oh, but, on the other hand, Richard was so sweet and lovely and good
> and gorgeous, with a nice bum and... :)
I think we've hit a gender issue here. Personally, I'd say all those
things about Elizabeth of York & more...a nice pair of...lips!
More More...
2003-03-05 20:22:14
< I'm sure it's there somewhere. but if in More of course you don't
> believe it, even though it gives Richard a valid reason for eruption.
> More probably had collecetd all he could about Richard with the
> intention to 'cut & paste' later. Remember his work was
> 'unfinished' & it really is unfair to judge him on a draft copy
> which he didn't intend for publication. He may've jettisoned some
> of the crap: Rous.>
Hey! I like that very first More draft - it mentions the fact that
the pre-contract stuff got an airing before the proper authorities
(since proctors were Church judges) and has Morton whispering in
Buckigham's lugs! I think I've mentioned that I don't dismiss
everything More said, and am well aware than a draft may not look
anything like the finished product - you should see some of my reports
- or my jettisoned emails, come to that.
I'm off home now and after dinner - and the washing-up <g> - will try
and find where Dorset made his remarks and who reported them unless
you post it in the meantime.
Lorraine
> believe it, even though it gives Richard a valid reason for eruption.
> More probably had collecetd all he could about Richard with the
> intention to 'cut & paste' later. Remember his work was
> 'unfinished' & it really is unfair to judge him on a draft copy
> which he didn't intend for publication. He may've jettisoned some
> of the crap: Rous.>
Hey! I like that very first More draft - it mentions the fact that
the pre-contract stuff got an airing before the proper authorities
(since proctors were Church judges) and has Morton whispering in
Buckigham's lugs! I think I've mentioned that I don't dismiss
everything More said, and am well aware than a draft may not look
anything like the finished product - you should see some of my reports
- or my jettisoned emails, come to that.
I'm off home now and after dinner - and the washing-up <g> - will try
and find where Dorset made his remarks and who reported them unless
you post it in the meantime.
Lorraine
Mancini
2003-03-05 23:58:23
It's in Mancini. Hastings told Gloucester. Dorset said 'We are so
important that even without the king's uncle (Gloucester) we can make
& enforce these decisions.'
Jockeying for power, trying to outdo Gloucester. Here is the highly
provocative trigger that caused Richard to erupt over the Woodvilles,
which swept away the Woodvilles, Hastings & Edward V & swept Richard
to power, his only possible route to survival.
Richard was already de facto King of the North, he was a man who had
heard about the brutal decapitation of his father & teen brother,
Edmund when Richard was only 8. The trauma of this, the experience of
further brutalisation of fighting hand to hand in battles where heads
arms & legs went flying, the fraternal treachery of Clarence, the
fraticide of Edward against Clarence, the role that the Woodvilles
played in this, Edward's slobbish overindulgence, Richard's advisors
who disliked the Woodvilles (& Edward 5 who was half brother to the
arrogant upstart Dorset,) all of this burst upon the Woodvilles.
Of course someone will pipe up that they don't believe this account,
Mancini was biased, he'd read too much Warkworth...
--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < I'm sure it's there somewhere. but if in More of course you don't
> > believe it, even though it gives Richard a valid reason for
eruption.
>
> > More probably had collecetd all he could about Richard with the
> > intention to 'cut & paste' later. Remember his work was
> > 'unfinished' & it really is unfair to judge him on a draft copy
> > which he didn't intend for publication. He may've jettisoned some
> > of the crap: Rous.>
>
> Hey! I like that very first More draft - it mentions the fact that
> the pre-contract stuff got an airing before the proper authorities
> (since proctors were Church judges) and has Morton whispering in
> Buckigham's lugs! I think I've mentioned that I don't dismiss
> everything More said, and am well aware than a draft may not look
> anything like the finished product - you should see some of my
reports
> - or my jettisoned emails, come to that.
>
> I'm off home now and after dinner - and the washing-up <g> - will
try
> and find where Dorset made his remarks and who reported them unless
> you post it in the meantime.
>
> Lorraine
important that even without the king's uncle (Gloucester) we can make
& enforce these decisions.'
Jockeying for power, trying to outdo Gloucester. Here is the highly
provocative trigger that caused Richard to erupt over the Woodvilles,
which swept away the Woodvilles, Hastings & Edward V & swept Richard
to power, his only possible route to survival.
Richard was already de facto King of the North, he was a man who had
heard about the brutal decapitation of his father & teen brother,
Edmund when Richard was only 8. The trauma of this, the experience of
further brutalisation of fighting hand to hand in battles where heads
arms & legs went flying, the fraternal treachery of Clarence, the
fraticide of Edward against Clarence, the role that the Woodvilles
played in this, Edward's slobbish overindulgence, Richard's advisors
who disliked the Woodvilles (& Edward 5 who was half brother to the
arrogant upstart Dorset,) all of this burst upon the Woodvilles.
Of course someone will pipe up that they don't believe this account,
Mancini was biased, he'd read too much Warkworth...
--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> < I'm sure it's there somewhere. but if in More of course you don't
> > believe it, even though it gives Richard a valid reason for
eruption.
>
> > More probably had collecetd all he could about Richard with the
> > intention to 'cut & paste' later. Remember his work was
> > 'unfinished' & it really is unfair to judge him on a draft copy
> > which he didn't intend for publication. He may've jettisoned some
> > of the crap: Rous.>
>
> Hey! I like that very first More draft - it mentions the fact that
> the pre-contract stuff got an airing before the proper authorities
> (since proctors were Church judges) and has Morton whispering in
> Buckigham's lugs! I think I've mentioned that I don't dismiss
> everything More said, and am well aware than a draft may not look
> anything like the finished product - you should see some of my
reports
> - or my jettisoned emails, come to that.
>
> I'm off home now and after dinner - and the washing-up <g> - will
try
> and find where Dorset made his remarks and who reported them unless
> you post it in the meantime.
>
> Lorraine
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 00:06:02
In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willison2001@... writes:
> If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> grounds that:
Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with, willison
(your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from the house
of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That in itself
was enough for his mother to be upset with.
Victoria
{Loyaulte Me Lie{
willison2001@... writes:
> If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> grounds that:
Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with, willison
(your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from the house
of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That in itself
was enough for his mother to be upset with.
Victoria
{Loyaulte Me Lie{
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 00:18:00
Quite.
It's a bit like an unmarried President Bush kicking the innards out
of Osama Bin Laden & then marrying his daughter. The Bush parents
might be a tadge disappointed, as with others for this 'sleeping with
the enemy.' They might feel betrayed, putting an enemy into a
position of power which might work against them. As we know, some of
this came out when Richard in 1483 exploded over the Woodvile clan.
--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> > grounds that:
>
> Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with,
willison
> (your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from
the house
> of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That in
itself
> was enough for his mother to be upset with.
>
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>
It's a bit like an unmarried President Bush kicking the innards out
of Osama Bin Laden & then marrying his daughter. The Bush parents
might be a tadge disappointed, as with others for this 'sleeping with
the enemy.' They might feel betrayed, putting an enemy into a
position of power which might work against them. As we know, some of
this came out when Richard in 1483 exploded over the Woodvile clan.
--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@y... writes:
>
>
> > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> > grounds that:
>
> Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with,
willison
> (your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from
the house
> of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That in
itself
> was enough for his mother to be upset with.
>
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 04:08:16
Can we once and for all get over the fact that Elizabeth Wydeville was not
quite the "Lancastrian widow" that everyone likes to make out.
Whilst for the King of England she wasn't the most suitable future Queen
regarding her birth she came from a relatively good background (incidentally
one that was slightly higher up the social scale than the bulk of the
English Aristocracy of the period had been a century or so earlier).
Her father's family were standard English gentry made good through
connections and service to local peers and the crown. Her mother's family
were descendants of the House of Luxemburg who provided a few Holy Roman
Emperors and a few Kings of Hungary and Bohemia. Jacquetta de St Pol's
great niece was the grandmother of Henri IV of France. Her brother was
Constable of France briefly under Louis XI.
Elizabeth's first husband's family were far from just Lancastrian Knights -
her mother in law Elizabeth Ferrers was not only a Baroness in her own right
but the granddaughter of a Duke of Norfolk (her mother married secondly Lord
Berkely and her grandson from that marriage was the other co-heir to the
Norfolk estates along with the Howards) - Elizabeth Ferrers had married
secondly a Bourchier brother to Edward IV's Uncle the Earl of Essex.
Cecily Neville may not have approved of the marriage but it seems that Proud
Cis decided to face out the critics and happily stood as godmother to some
of the resulting progeny.
The Virgin stuff by the way is pure nonsense - men of rank married widows
all the time - it was often a very sensible financial thing to do if there
wasn't a spare heiress around at the time.
There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so chose.
----- Original Message -----
From: <hockeygirl1016@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@... writes:
>
>
> > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> > grounds that:
>
> Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with,
willison
> (your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from the
house
> of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That in itself
> was enough for his mother to be upset with.
>
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
quite the "Lancastrian widow" that everyone likes to make out.
Whilst for the King of England she wasn't the most suitable future Queen
regarding her birth she came from a relatively good background (incidentally
one that was slightly higher up the social scale than the bulk of the
English Aristocracy of the period had been a century or so earlier).
Her father's family were standard English gentry made good through
connections and service to local peers and the crown. Her mother's family
were descendants of the House of Luxemburg who provided a few Holy Roman
Emperors and a few Kings of Hungary and Bohemia. Jacquetta de St Pol's
great niece was the grandmother of Henri IV of France. Her brother was
Constable of France briefly under Louis XI.
Elizabeth's first husband's family were far from just Lancastrian Knights -
her mother in law Elizabeth Ferrers was not only a Baroness in her own right
but the granddaughter of a Duke of Norfolk (her mother married secondly Lord
Berkely and her grandson from that marriage was the other co-heir to the
Norfolk estates along with the Howards) - Elizabeth Ferrers had married
secondly a Bourchier brother to Edward IV's Uncle the Earl of Essex.
Cecily Neville may not have approved of the marriage but it seems that Proud
Cis decided to face out the critics and happily stood as godmother to some
of the resulting progeny.
The Virgin stuff by the way is pure nonsense - men of rank married widows
all the time - it was often a very sensible financial thing to do if there
wasn't a spare heiress around at the time.
There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so chose.
----- Original Message -----
From: <hockeygirl1016@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> willison2001@... writes:
>
>
> > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> > grounds that:
>
> Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with,
willison
> (your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from the
house
> of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That in itself
> was enough for his mother to be upset with.
>
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 04:13:36
Think we can make too much of the divide - given that families themselves
were often split over which King they were supporting (Henry VI or Edward
IV).
In Cecily's case - one sister was Duchess of Buckingham (Lancastrian)
another was Duchess of Norfolk (siting on the fence) another was Countess of
Northumberland (Lancastrian).
Amongst Edward's family - Anne his eldest sister was Duchess of Exeter
(Lancastrian) another Duchess of Suffolk (Fence sitting).
Edward himself had been relatively concilliatory with all but the staunchest
of the Lancastrian party long before he married Elizabeth Wydeville.
Original Message -----
From: "willison2001" <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> Quite.
>
> It's a bit like an unmarried President Bush kicking the innards out
> of Osama Bin Laden & then marrying his daughter. The Bush parents
> might be a tadge disappointed, as with others for this 'sleeping with
> the enemy.' They might feel betrayed, putting an enemy into a
> position of power which might work against them. As we know, some of
> this came out when Richard in 1483 exploded over the Woodvile clan.
>
>
>
>
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > willison2001@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> > > grounds that:
> >
> > Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with,
> willison
> > (your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from
> the house
> > of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That in
> itself
> > was enough for his mother to be upset with.
> >
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
were often split over which King they were supporting (Henry VI or Edward
IV).
In Cecily's case - one sister was Duchess of Buckingham (Lancastrian)
another was Duchess of Norfolk (siting on the fence) another was Countess of
Northumberland (Lancastrian).
Amongst Edward's family - Anne his eldest sister was Duchess of Exeter
(Lancastrian) another Duchess of Suffolk (Fence sitting).
Edward himself had been relatively concilliatory with all but the staunchest
of the Lancastrian party long before he married Elizabeth Wydeville.
Original Message -----
From: "willison2001" <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> Quite.
>
> It's a bit like an unmarried President Bush kicking the innards out
> of Osama Bin Laden & then marrying his daughter. The Bush parents
> might be a tadge disappointed, as with others for this 'sleeping with
> the enemy.' They might feel betrayed, putting an enemy into a
> position of power which might work against them. As we know, some of
> this came out when Richard in 1483 exploded over the Woodvile clan.
>
>
>
>
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > willison2001@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> > > grounds that:
> >
> > Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with,
> willison
> > (your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from
> the house
> > of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That in
> itself
> > was enough for his mother to be upset with.
> >
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 09:57:38
--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> Can we once and for all get over the fact that Elizabeth Wydeville
was not
> quite the "Lancastrian widow" that everyone likes to make out.
>
> Whilst for the King of England she wasn't the most suitable future
Queen
> regarding her birth she came from a relatively good background
(incidentally
> one that was slightly higher up the social scale than the bulk of
the
> English Aristocracy of the period had been a century or so earlier).
>
> Her father's family were standard English gentry made good through
> connections and service to local peers and the crown. Her mother's
family
> were descendants of the House of Luxemburg who provided a few Holy
Roman
> Emperors and a few Kings of Hungary and Bohemia. Jacquetta de St
Pol's
> great niece was the grandmother of Henri IV of France. Her brother
was
> Constable of France briefly under Louis XI.
> Elizabeth's first husband's family were far from just Lancastrian
Knights -
> her mother in law Elizabeth Ferrers was not only a Baroness in her
own right
> but the granddaughter of a Duke of Norfolk (her mother married
secondly Lord
> Berkely and her grandson from that marriage was the other co-heir
to the
> Norfolk estates along with the Howards) - Elizabeth Ferrers had
married
> secondly a Bourchier brother to Edward IV's Uncle the Earl of Essex.
>
> Cecily Neville may not have approved of the marriage but it seems
that Proud
> Cis decided to face out the critics and happily stood as godmother
to some
> of the resulting progeny.
>
> The Virgin stuff by the way is pure nonsense - men of rank married
widows
> all the time - it was often a very sensible financial thing to do
if there
> wasn't a spare heiress around at the time.
>
> There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so chose.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <hockeygirl1016@a...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
>
>
> > In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > willison2001@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> > > grounds that:
> >
> > Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with,
> willison
> > (your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from
the
> house
> > of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That
in itself
> > was enough for his mother to be upset with.
> >
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and foreign
princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home was
unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
wrote:
> Can we once and for all get over the fact that Elizabeth Wydeville
was not
> quite the "Lancastrian widow" that everyone likes to make out.
>
> Whilst for the King of England she wasn't the most suitable future
Queen
> regarding her birth she came from a relatively good background
(incidentally
> one that was slightly higher up the social scale than the bulk of
the
> English Aristocracy of the period had been a century or so earlier).
>
> Her father's family were standard English gentry made good through
> connections and service to local peers and the crown. Her mother's
family
> were descendants of the House of Luxemburg who provided a few Holy
Roman
> Emperors and a few Kings of Hungary and Bohemia. Jacquetta de St
Pol's
> great niece was the grandmother of Henri IV of France. Her brother
was
> Constable of France briefly under Louis XI.
> Elizabeth's first husband's family were far from just Lancastrian
Knights -
> her mother in law Elizabeth Ferrers was not only a Baroness in her
own right
> but the granddaughter of a Duke of Norfolk (her mother married
secondly Lord
> Berkely and her grandson from that marriage was the other co-heir
to the
> Norfolk estates along with the Howards) - Elizabeth Ferrers had
married
> secondly a Bourchier brother to Edward IV's Uncle the Earl of Essex.
>
> Cecily Neville may not have approved of the marriage but it seems
that Proud
> Cis decided to face out the critics and happily stood as godmother
to some
> of the resulting progeny.
>
> The Virgin stuff by the way is pure nonsense - men of rank married
widows
> all the time - it was often a very sensible financial thing to do
if there
> wasn't a spare heiress around at the time.
>
> There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so chose.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <hockeygirl1016@a...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
>
>
> > In a message dated 3/5/03 1:43:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > willison2001@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville it may be on the
> > > grounds that:
> >
> > Saving space here by not including reasons, but this I agree with,
> willison
> > (your name has slipped my mind at the moment). Edward IV was from
the
> house
> > of york, he was marrying the widow of a Lancastrian knight. That
in itself
> > was enough for his mother to be upset with.
> >
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and foreign
princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home was
unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 10:15:03
No Kings were not expected to marry virgins - Henry IV's second wife was
Joan of Navarre (the widow of the Duke of Brittany). The Black Prince
married Joan Holland (a commoner although well connected and again a widow).
Not quite unheard of though rare.
Marrying abroad was the common practice however it wasn't unheard of for
members of the royal family to marry at home.
Of the sons of Edward III all of them with the exception of the second wives
of Lionel of Antwerp and John of Gaunt were commoners.
Whilst her background wasn't particularly wonderful on her fathers side most
people seem to have quickly got over it once she was Queen.
>
> I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and foreign
> princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home was
> unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
>
> Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Joan of Navarre (the widow of the Duke of Brittany). The Black Prince
married Joan Holland (a commoner although well connected and again a widow).
Not quite unheard of though rare.
Marrying abroad was the common practice however it wasn't unheard of for
members of the royal family to marry at home.
Of the sons of Edward III all of them with the exception of the second wives
of Lionel of Antwerp and John of Gaunt were commoners.
Whilst her background wasn't particularly wonderful on her fathers side most
people seem to have quickly got over it once she was Queen.
>
> I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and foreign
> princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home was
> unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
>
> Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 12:53:27
tim wrote:
>
> There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so chose.
>
I think Edward himself said she would be a good consort because she
had already produced two healthy sons for her first husband so the
succession would be assured.
Carol
>
> There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so chose.
>
I think Edward himself said she would be a good consort because she
had already produced two healthy sons for her first husband so the
succession would be assured.
Carol
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 13:05:49
True enough. Edward loved to do what he chose, but we know that
Warwick & his supporters didn't find it a popular move & we can
speculate about Richard's view, given what happened later.
As I said, Dorset seems to have led the move on Richard's power by
his ill-advised remarks. As we know, if you knock down one domino
the rest can tumble.
--- In , Carol Rondou
<lilith@e...> wrote:
> tim wrote:
> >
> > There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so
chose.
> >
> I think Edward himself said she would be a good consort because she
> had already produced two healthy sons for her first husband so the
> succession would be assured.
>
> Carol
Warwick & his supporters didn't find it a popular move & we can
speculate about Richard's view, given what happened later.
As I said, Dorset seems to have led the move on Richard's power by
his ill-advised remarks. As we know, if you knock down one domino
the rest can tumble.
--- In , Carol Rondou
<lilith@e...> wrote:
> tim wrote:
> >
> > There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so
chose.
> >
> I think Edward himself said she would be a good consort because she
> had already produced two healthy sons for her first husband so the
> succession would be assured.
>
> Carol
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 13:10:48
I think we should allow for a variation of opinion about the
attitude to class & virginity. Warwick & Richard may've been snobs
about class. Whether Ann Neville was a virgin I don't know, but
Richard did seem to have some very high moral views about certain
areas of life: especially to do with sex & provenance.
.--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> No Kings were not expected to marry virgins - Henry IV's second wife
was
> Joan of Navarre (the widow of the Duke of Brittany). The Black
Prince
> married Joan Holland (a commoner although well connected and again a
widow).
> Not quite unheard of though rare.
>
> Marrying abroad was the common practice however it wasn't unheard of
for
> members of the royal family to marry at home.
> Of the sons of Edward III all of them with the exception of the
second wives
> of Lionel of Antwerp and John of Gaunt were commoners.
>
> Whilst her background wasn't particularly wonderful on her fathers
side most
> people seem to have quickly got over it once she was Queen.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and
foreign
> > princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home
was
> > unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> > connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> > contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
> >
> > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
attitude to class & virginity. Warwick & Richard may've been snobs
about class. Whether Ann Neville was a virgin I don't know, but
Richard did seem to have some very high moral views about certain
areas of life: especially to do with sex & provenance.
.--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> No Kings were not expected to marry virgins - Henry IV's second wife
was
> Joan of Navarre (the widow of the Duke of Brittany). The Black
Prince
> married Joan Holland (a commoner although well connected and again a
widow).
> Not quite unheard of though rare.
>
> Marrying abroad was the common practice however it wasn't unheard of
for
> members of the royal family to marry at home.
> Of the sons of Edward III all of them with the exception of the
second wives
> of Lionel of Antwerp and John of Gaunt were commoners.
>
> Whilst her background wasn't particularly wonderful on her fathers
side most
> people seem to have quickly got over it once she was Queen.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and
foreign
> > princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home
was
> > unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> > connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> > contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
> >
> > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 14:26:01
--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
> No Kings were not expected to marry virgins - Henry IV's second
wife was
> Joan of Navarre (the widow of the Duke of Brittany). The Black
Prince
> married Joan Holland (a commoner although well connected and again
a widow).
> Not quite unheard of though rare.
>
> Marrying abroad was the common practice however it wasn't unheard
of for
> members of the royal family to marry at home.
> Of the sons of Edward III all of them with the exception of the
second wives
> of Lionel of Antwerp and John of Gaunt were commoners.
>
> Whilst her background wasn't particularly wonderful on her fathers
side most
> people seem to have quickly got over it once she was Queen.
I take your point that it was not unprecedented. I was only
repeating a claim made by many historians. Actually, I did read this
sort of thing in the pree in the days when Prince Charles was still
single - that bride had to be Protestant, and a virgin.
The virgin thing was perhaps in part a precaution against a the queen
being pregnant by another man on marriage, so would not be a
particular issue for a king who already had a family remarrying in
later life.
Edward III's sons are perhaps an exception (and only one of them was
heir to the throne). The Black Prince's marriage to Joan of Kent was
not an arranged match. It may perhaps have been difficult for Edward
to find suitable foreign brides during the Hundred Years War, I don't
know.
But, anyway, these cases are the exceptions. The norm was for queens
to be foreign princesses, and for their marriages to be state
business. And Edward was foolish enough to encourage his council and
ministers in this, and then do something else behind their backs.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and
foreign
> > princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home
was
> > unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> > connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> > contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
> >
> > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
wrote:
>
> No Kings were not expected to marry virgins - Henry IV's second
wife was
> Joan of Navarre (the widow of the Duke of Brittany). The Black
Prince
> married Joan Holland (a commoner although well connected and again
a widow).
> Not quite unheard of though rare.
>
> Marrying abroad was the common practice however it wasn't unheard
of for
> members of the royal family to marry at home.
> Of the sons of Edward III all of them with the exception of the
second wives
> of Lionel of Antwerp and John of Gaunt were commoners.
>
> Whilst her background wasn't particularly wonderful on her fathers
side most
> people seem to have quickly got over it once she was Queen.
I take your point that it was not unprecedented. I was only
repeating a claim made by many historians. Actually, I did read this
sort of thing in the pree in the days when Prince Charles was still
single - that bride had to be Protestant, and a virgin.
The virgin thing was perhaps in part a precaution against a the queen
being pregnant by another man on marriage, so would not be a
particular issue for a king who already had a family remarrying in
later life.
Edward III's sons are perhaps an exception (and only one of them was
heir to the throne). The Black Prince's marriage to Joan of Kent was
not an arranged match. It may perhaps have been difficult for Edward
to find suitable foreign brides during the Hundred Years War, I don't
know.
But, anyway, these cases are the exceptions. The norm was for queens
to be foreign princesses, and for their marriages to be state
business. And Edward was foolish enough to encourage his council and
ministers in this, and then do something else behind their backs.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and
foreign
> > princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home
was
> > unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> > connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> > contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
> >
> > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-06 21:15:30
In a message dated 3/6/03 5:01:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
marie@... writes:
> I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and foreign
> princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home was
> unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
>
> Marie
>
I may be sounding ignorant when I say this, but wasn't it based on the
father's background usually? I know that when Anne Boleyn became Henry's
femme du jour, hardly ever made mention of her mother being the Duke of
Norfolk's sister. She was just the daughter of Thomas Boleyn, who had only
risen to power recently and whose ancestors were nothing special.
Victoria
{Loyaulte Me Lie{
marie@... writes:
> I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and foreign
> princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home was
> unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
>
> Marie
>
I may be sounding ignorant when I say this, but wasn't it based on the
father's background usually? I know that when Anne Boleyn became Henry's
femme du jour, hardly ever made mention of her mother being the Duke of
Norfolk's sister. She was just the daughter of Thomas Boleyn, who had only
risen to power recently and whose ancestors were nothing special.
Victoria
{Loyaulte Me Lie{
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-07 00:13:54
Actually the Charles and Diana was a modern thing - it was a reaction to the
guaranteed interest of the press in the past of whomsever Charles chose to
marry.
> Edward III's sons are perhaps an exception (and only one of them was
> heir to the throne). The Black Prince's marriage to Joan of Kent was
> not an arranged match. It may perhaps have been difficult for Edward
> to find suitable foreign brides during the Hundred Years War, I don't
> know.
Well in fairness it was the heir who married the least eligible bride - Joan
Holland may have had a strong pedigree but she was no heiress. To be honest
Edward III behaved a little like his descendant Edward IV with a penchant
for endowing his sons not out of crown lands but out of someone elses
property.
It certainly wouldn't have been a problem finding a foreign wife the Hundred
Years Wars only affected relations with France not everyone else and Royal
Marriages were often used (usually unsuccesfully) to end or prevent
conflict.
Edward IV's case is a little different - the bride on offer didn't have the
highest social standing - the Savoy's were an enormous if well connected
brood. Also politically whilst Warwick's view that a French alliance would
end French support for Henry VI was probably quite perceptive it wouldn't
guarantee it. Given that Henry VI's government had been attacked both by
the elite and the commons for arranging to marry him to the penniless
Margaret of Anjou who ultimately herself enjoyed great personal unpopularity
it was perhaps within Edward's mind that a french marriage may have proved
to be quite a handicap.
No-one seems to have been that fussed when it all came out at Reading in
fact a significant section of the nobility got knocked over in the rush to
offer the heir and the spare to the unmarried Wydeville girls. There is no
suggestion that any of those marriages took place through coercion.
Marriage was after all the securest and easiest route to dynastic
aggrandisment. And given the only surviving evidence that we have on
general reaction is a letter probably to Rivers from Howard suggesting that
the public were quite unbothered by the idea of an English Queen.
Its a mistake to assume that a foreign Queen would have been universally
acclaimed and welcomed. For the bulk of the Plantagenet era Queen Consorts
with the odd exception had been French or Spanish - they were frequently
unpopular irrespective of whether they were active in politics or not. By
comparison if you look at the small amount of contemporary evidence
surviving from the 1470's then Queen Elizabeth Wydeville seems to have made
quite a good fist of things and certainly was probably a better Queen
Consort than most of her immediate predecessors - her reputation like that
of her brother in law rests on what happened in 1483 rather than anything
else and like Richard you can reasonably argue that she has suffered from
reputation blackening with far less evidence for it.
As to upsetting and shocking the courts of europe - the evidence suggests
that the marriage soon attracted a rather romantic tinge to it. The only
person entitled to be upset was Louis XI of France and he was actually quite
sanguine about the matter.
>
> But, anyway, these cases are the exceptions. The norm was for queens
> to be foreign princesses, and for their marriages to be state
> business. And Edward was foolish enough to encourage his council and
> ministers in this, and then do something else behind their backs.
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and
> foreign
> > > princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home
> was
> > > unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> > > connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> > > contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
guaranteed interest of the press in the past of whomsever Charles chose to
marry.
> Edward III's sons are perhaps an exception (and only one of them was
> heir to the throne). The Black Prince's marriage to Joan of Kent was
> not an arranged match. It may perhaps have been difficult for Edward
> to find suitable foreign brides during the Hundred Years War, I don't
> know.
Well in fairness it was the heir who married the least eligible bride - Joan
Holland may have had a strong pedigree but she was no heiress. To be honest
Edward III behaved a little like his descendant Edward IV with a penchant
for endowing his sons not out of crown lands but out of someone elses
property.
It certainly wouldn't have been a problem finding a foreign wife the Hundred
Years Wars only affected relations with France not everyone else and Royal
Marriages were often used (usually unsuccesfully) to end or prevent
conflict.
Edward IV's case is a little different - the bride on offer didn't have the
highest social standing - the Savoy's were an enormous if well connected
brood. Also politically whilst Warwick's view that a French alliance would
end French support for Henry VI was probably quite perceptive it wouldn't
guarantee it. Given that Henry VI's government had been attacked both by
the elite and the commons for arranging to marry him to the penniless
Margaret of Anjou who ultimately herself enjoyed great personal unpopularity
it was perhaps within Edward's mind that a french marriage may have proved
to be quite a handicap.
No-one seems to have been that fussed when it all came out at Reading in
fact a significant section of the nobility got knocked over in the rush to
offer the heir and the spare to the unmarried Wydeville girls. There is no
suggestion that any of those marriages took place through coercion.
Marriage was after all the securest and easiest route to dynastic
aggrandisment. And given the only surviving evidence that we have on
general reaction is a letter probably to Rivers from Howard suggesting that
the public were quite unbothered by the idea of an English Queen.
Its a mistake to assume that a foreign Queen would have been universally
acclaimed and welcomed. For the bulk of the Plantagenet era Queen Consorts
with the odd exception had been French or Spanish - they were frequently
unpopular irrespective of whether they were active in politics or not. By
comparison if you look at the small amount of contemporary evidence
surviving from the 1470's then Queen Elizabeth Wydeville seems to have made
quite a good fist of things and certainly was probably a better Queen
Consort than most of her immediate predecessors - her reputation like that
of her brother in law rests on what happened in 1483 rather than anything
else and like Richard you can reasonably argue that she has suffered from
reputation blackening with far less evidence for it.
As to upsetting and shocking the courts of europe - the evidence suggests
that the marriage soon attracted a rather romantic tinge to it. The only
person entitled to be upset was Louis XI of France and he was actually quite
sanguine about the matter.
>
> But, anyway, these cases are the exceptions. The norm was for queens
> to be foreign princesses, and for their marriages to be state
> business. And Edward was foolish enough to encourage his council and
> ministers in this, and then do something else behind their backs.
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and
> foreign
> > > princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home
> was
> > > unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> > > connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> > > contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-07 00:25:23
Yes of course the fathers background was more important in terms of social
standing. Though in fairness there is little to suggest that the medieval
landed class were any less snobbish and hypocritcal about the whole thing
than the Georgians and Victorians. The Yorkist court was full of
arrivistes - Rivers received his pardon in 1460 and was back on the council
long before his daughter became Queen, the Bourchiers may have had an
illustrous background but Essex didn't get his Earldom until his nephew was
on the throne, Hastings was descended from country Baron's and made himself
through his own service to the house of york and marriage, the Neville's
were only two or three generations from backwater barons again made good
through marriage, the Earl of Pembroke's family were even more noveaux than
the Wydeville's. There were very few families whose lineage would stand up
to too close an examination.
I have no doubt there was resentment but its debatable how strong the
resentment was and so many commentators imply that the resentment was a
genuine upstanding grievance which given the background of so many of the so
called critics it wasn't.
----- Original Message -----
From: <hockeygirl1016@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> In a message dated 3/6/03 5:01:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> marie@... writes:
>
>
> > I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and foreign
> > princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home was
> > unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> > connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> > contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
> I may be sounding ignorant when I say this, but wasn't it based on the
> father's background usually? I know that when Anne Boleyn became Henry's
> femme du jour, hardly ever made mention of her mother being the Duke of
> Norfolk's sister. She was just the daughter of Thomas Boleyn, who had only
> risen to power recently and whose ancestors were nothing special.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
standing. Though in fairness there is little to suggest that the medieval
landed class were any less snobbish and hypocritcal about the whole thing
than the Georgians and Victorians. The Yorkist court was full of
arrivistes - Rivers received his pardon in 1460 and was back on the council
long before his daughter became Queen, the Bourchiers may have had an
illustrous background but Essex didn't get his Earldom until his nephew was
on the throne, Hastings was descended from country Baron's and made himself
through his own service to the house of york and marriage, the Neville's
were only two or three generations from backwater barons again made good
through marriage, the Earl of Pembroke's family were even more noveaux than
the Wydeville's. There were very few families whose lineage would stand up
to too close an examination.
I have no doubt there was resentment but its debatable how strong the
resentment was and so many commentators imply that the resentment was a
genuine upstanding grievance which given the background of so many of the so
called critics it wasn't.
----- Original Message -----
From: <hockeygirl1016@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> In a message dated 3/6/03 5:01:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> marie@... writes:
>
>
> > I understand that Kings were expected to marry virgins, and foreign
> > princesses at that, to gain political alliances. Marrying at home was
> > unheard of and created unstable power blocks. Although Elizabeth's
> > connections on her mother's side weere illustrious it is clear
> > contemporaries didn't rate her background very highly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
> I may be sounding ignorant when I say this, but wasn't it based on the
> father's background usually? I know that when Anne Boleyn became Henry's
> femme du jour, hardly ever made mention of her mother being the Duke of
> Norfolk's sister. She was just the daughter of Thomas Boleyn, who had only
> risen to power recently and whose ancestors were nothing special.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-07 00:33:50
Yes but the marriage didn't kill Edward and Warwick's relationship time and
their characters did that. Warwick was the largest single recipient of
Royal favour until virtually the last minute before the readeption.
Warwick's grants regarding the care of Richard of Gloucester for example
post date the marriage. Diplomatically the marriage didn't help Warwick's
international reputation as the man closest to the new King and I am sure he
resented it. But let's be honest the resentments that built over the next
few years were far more to do with the fact that Warwick discovered that
Edward wasn't a malleable child but an intelligent and highly gifted
individual who didn't need a guiding hand as much as perhaps Warwick had
hoped.
Warwick's resentments that bubbled up in 1469 to me show a man who didn't
like the idea of anyone having influence with the King unless they were a
Neville loyalist and in fairness the Wydeville's were a fairly easy target
for Warwick. Their support base was narrow - they were easy meat as was
Pembroke.
On Dorset we know very very little apart from the fact the unlike the vast
majority of characters in Yorkist England he died peacefull of old age in
his bed <g>. The ill advised remark is an often repeated one though it has
yet to be stood up as factual.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "willison2001" <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> True enough. Edward loved to do what he chose, but we know that
> Warwick & his supporters didn't find it a popular move & we can
> speculate about Richard's view, given what happened later.
>
> As I said, Dorset seems to have led the move on Richard's power by
> his ill-advised remarks. As we know, if you knock down one domino
> the rest can tumble.
>
> --- In , Carol Rondou
> <lilith@e...> wrote:
> > tim wrote:
> > >
> > > There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so
> chose.
> > >
> > I think Edward himself said she would be a good consort because she
> > had already produced two healthy sons for her first husband so the
> > succession would be assured.
> >
> > Carol
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
their characters did that. Warwick was the largest single recipient of
Royal favour until virtually the last minute before the readeption.
Warwick's grants regarding the care of Richard of Gloucester for example
post date the marriage. Diplomatically the marriage didn't help Warwick's
international reputation as the man closest to the new King and I am sure he
resented it. But let's be honest the resentments that built over the next
few years were far more to do with the fact that Warwick discovered that
Edward wasn't a malleable child but an intelligent and highly gifted
individual who didn't need a guiding hand as much as perhaps Warwick had
hoped.
Warwick's resentments that bubbled up in 1469 to me show a man who didn't
like the idea of anyone having influence with the King unless they were a
Neville loyalist and in fairness the Wydeville's were a fairly easy target
for Warwick. Their support base was narrow - they were easy meat as was
Pembroke.
On Dorset we know very very little apart from the fact the unlike the vast
majority of characters in Yorkist England he died peacefull of old age in
his bed <g>. The ill advised remark is an often repeated one though it has
yet to be stood up as factual.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "willison2001" <willison2001@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> True enough. Edward loved to do what he chose, but we know that
> Warwick & his supporters didn't find it a popular move & we can
> speculate about Richard's view, given what happened later.
>
> As I said, Dorset seems to have led the move on Richard's power by
> his ill-advised remarks. As we know, if you knock down one domino
> the rest can tumble.
>
> --- In , Carol Rondou
> <lilith@e...> wrote:
> > tim wrote:
> > >
> > > There was nothing to prevent a King marrying a widow if he so
> chose.
> > >
> > I think Edward himself said she would be a good consort because she
> > had already produced two healthy sons for her first husband so the
> > succession would be assured.
> >
> > Carol
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
The E4-Wydeville Marriage
2003-03-07 11:25:58
Hi Tim & Marie
< As to upsetting and shocking the courts of europe - the evidence
suggests that the marriage soon attracted a rather romantic tinge to
it. >
This is true - isn't there a surviving account from Italy
about their marriage to this effect?
Lorraine
< As to upsetting and shocking the courts of europe - the evidence
suggests that the marriage soon attracted a rather romantic tinge to
it. >
This is true - isn't there a surviving account from Italy
about their marriage to this effect?
Lorraine
Dorset
2003-03-07 11:41:22
Hi Tim
< On Dorset we know very very little apart from the fact the unlike
the vast majority of characters in Yorkist England he died peacefull
of old age in his bed <g>. The ill advised remark is an often
repeated one though it has yet to be stood up as factual.>
Kendall points out that as Mancini rarely allows himself a direct
quote, it may well be that his informant had first hand info that
Dorset actually said those remarks.
True, we know very little about him, but what we do know is of a
piece with that remark. I grant the factual but rather
pompous 'Uterine Brother' bit was probably not at his instigation,
given how Cecily and Richard are also referred to in the grandest
terms in official documents, but the fact that he clearly upset the
Abbot of Westminster by trying to store goods that perhaps he ought
not to have had, the fact that he availed himself of the sanctuary in
the first place, the fact that Rivers gave him virtual control of the
Tower when that cosy arrangement b/w the pair was not exactly proper,
according to law and custom and the fact that he blew this way and
that over Tudor & R3, suggests a person that could be arguably found
wanting.
Lorraine
< On Dorset we know very very little apart from the fact the unlike
the vast majority of characters in Yorkist England he died peacefull
of old age in his bed <g>. The ill advised remark is an often
repeated one though it has yet to be stood up as factual.>
Kendall points out that as Mancini rarely allows himself a direct
quote, it may well be that his informant had first hand info that
Dorset actually said those remarks.
True, we know very little about him, but what we do know is of a
piece with that remark. I grant the factual but rather
pompous 'Uterine Brother' bit was probably not at his instigation,
given how Cecily and Richard are also referred to in the grandest
terms in official documents, but the fact that he clearly upset the
Abbot of Westminster by trying to store goods that perhaps he ought
not to have had, the fact that he availed himself of the sanctuary in
the first place, the fact that Rivers gave him virtual control of the
Tower when that cosy arrangement b/w the pair was not exactly proper,
according to law and custom and the fact that he blew this way and
that over Tudor & R3, suggests a person that could be arguably found
wanting.
Lorraine
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-08 20:17:45
willison200105/03/2003 19:37willison2001@...
> If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville
IF? IF? IF? what do you mean IF? Don't you read anything but More?
It is clearly documented that she disapproved, and who in the York family
didn't?
> If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville
IF? IF? IF? what do you mean IF? Don't you read anything but More?
It is clearly documented that she disapproved, and who in the York family
didn't?
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-09 05:47:08
Tut tut Paul and usually so reasonable.
It is if - you can't have it both ways you know - More was completely ill
informed and wrong about Richard but right about Cecily's view of Edward's
wife?
Clearly documented by whom - More?
We have no evidence of her relationship with her sisters in law - Anne of
Exeter, Elizabeth of Suffolk or Margaret of Burgundy. All we do know is
that Edward married her and some people disapproved - what a surprise!
Cecily's nose was of course so out of joint that she stayed safely away from
her son's court - though she was happy enough to attend Elizabeth of York's
christening as god mother, happy to be a guest at Richard Duke of York and
Norfolk's marriage to Anne Mowbray and still happy enought to stand sponsor
for Bridget of York.
----- Original Message -----
From: "P.T.Bale" <paultrevor@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> willison200105/03/2003 19:37willison2001@...
>
> > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville
> IF? IF? IF? what do you mean IF? Don't you read anything but More?
> It is clearly documented that she disapproved, and who in the York family
> didn't?
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
It is if - you can't have it both ways you know - More was completely ill
informed and wrong about Richard but right about Cecily's view of Edward's
wife?
Clearly documented by whom - More?
We have no evidence of her relationship with her sisters in law - Anne of
Exeter, Elizabeth of Suffolk or Margaret of Burgundy. All we do know is
that Edward married her and some people disapproved - what a surprise!
Cecily's nose was of course so out of joint that she stayed safely away from
her son's court - though she was happy enough to attend Elizabeth of York's
christening as god mother, happy to be a guest at Richard Duke of York and
Norfolk's marriage to Anne Mowbray and still happy enought to stand sponsor
for Bridget of York.
----- Original Message -----
From: "P.T.Bale" <paultrevor@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Edward IV a bastard?
> willison200105/03/2003 19:37willison2001@...
>
> > If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville
> IF? IF? IF? what do you mean IF? Don't you read anything but More?
> It is clearly documented that she disapproved, and who in the York family
> didn't?
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-10 15:24:57
Hi Paul
< If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville
> IF? IF? IF? what do you mean IF? Don't you read anything but More?
> It is clearly documented that she disapproved, and who in the York
family did't?>
Erm, to be fair, Paul: probably Richard. Elizabeth certainly
appointed, perhaps even reappointed him, I can't quite remember now,
to a role as Steward or something. The position attracted a grant,
and was ratified around about the time Clarence was making an arse of
himself. So - I infer from this, and the later accommodations, that
Richard and EW had developed a reasonably cordial relationship by the
time Richard reached his majority, otherwise they'd both come across
as rather calculating; you know, her giving the beloved brother some
cash and some more cachet, and him taking it as his due, regardless
of his dislike of her. On balance, I prefer to think they rubbed
along OK. ;)
Lorraine
< If Cecily did disapprove of Elizabeth Woodville
> IF? IF? IF? what do you mean IF? Don't you read anything but More?
> It is clearly documented that she disapproved, and who in the York
family did't?>
Erm, to be fair, Paul: probably Richard. Elizabeth certainly
appointed, perhaps even reappointed him, I can't quite remember now,
to a role as Steward or something. The position attracted a grant,
and was ratified around about the time Clarence was making an arse of
himself. So - I infer from this, and the later accommodations, that
Richard and EW had developed a reasonably cordial relationship by the
time Richard reached his majority, otherwise they'd both come across
as rather calculating; you know, her giving the beloved brother some
cash and some more cachet, and him taking it as his due, regardless
of his dislike of her. On balance, I prefer to think they rubbed
along OK. ;)
Lorraine
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV a bastard?
2003-03-10 23:46:43
tim09/03/2003 6:47tmc_dale@...
> Tut tut Paul and usually so reasonable.
>
> It is if - you can't have it both ways you know - More was completely ill
> informed and wrong about Richard but right about Cecily's view of Edward's
> wife?
>
> Clearly documented by whom - More?
Tut Tim?
Didn'y know you were into Egyptology too<g>!
certainly not Tim, there is other evidence, and when I get the chance to
I'll dig it out for you.
reasonable in the face of bigoted, narrow opinions, lack of research, and
the endless repetition of outdated myths as fact ? me? naturally!
Paul
> Tut tut Paul and usually so reasonable.
>
> It is if - you can't have it both ways you know - More was completely ill
> informed and wrong about Richard but right about Cecily's view of Edward's
> wife?
>
> Clearly documented by whom - More?
Tut Tim?
Didn'y know you were into Egyptology too<g>!
certainly not Tim, there is other evidence, and when I get the chance to
I'll dig it out for you.
reasonable in the face of bigoted, narrow opinions, lack of research, and
the endless repetition of outdated myths as fact ? me? naturally!
Paul
Mancini
2010-04-04 14:13:39
I've been following the discussion concerning Mancini and wondered if this thought would help:
Mancini went to England on his own business. His dealings with Cato were much like those of professional or business people nowadays who are going to some country and are requested by their respsective intelligence agencies to "keep an eye out" while there and report back whatever they might see/hear.
That would explain Mancini's failure to know/learn obvious points (such as Richard's holdings not being in Gloucestershire) and also why so much of Mancini's eventual report sounds so much like gossip picked up in general conversation - because it was.
It appears as if it was only after Buckingham's Rebellion that Mancini was requested to write a report, perhaps he had already given a verbal precis of what he had seen and heard and Cato now wanted something to include in Cato's report to HIS patron about the new king of England and how he had gotten to the throne. I would think that Cato would have several, possibly many, people providing him with information and the request for a written report from Mancini was to refresh Cato's memory as much as anything else.
Anyway, just some ideas, hope they help.
Doug
who is enjoying this discussion, thank you very much!
Mancini went to England on his own business. His dealings with Cato were much like those of professional or business people nowadays who are going to some country and are requested by their respsective intelligence agencies to "keep an eye out" while there and report back whatever they might see/hear.
That would explain Mancini's failure to know/learn obvious points (such as Richard's holdings not being in Gloucestershire) and also why so much of Mancini's eventual report sounds so much like gossip picked up in general conversation - because it was.
It appears as if it was only after Buckingham's Rebellion that Mancini was requested to write a report, perhaps he had already given a verbal precis of what he had seen and heard and Cato now wanted something to include in Cato's report to HIS patron about the new king of England and how he had gotten to the throne. I would think that Cato would have several, possibly many, people providing him with information and the request for a written report from Mancini was to refresh Cato's memory as much as anything else.
Anyway, just some ideas, hope they help.
Doug
who is enjoying this discussion, thank you very much!
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.