Countess of Warwick's lands
Countess of Warwick's lands
2012-11-09 15:46:53
Yahoo is still not cooperating, so I can't thread this post.
Marie wrote:
>
> And this is the editorial comment on the act whereby the Countess' lands were divided between Clarence and Gloucester as though she were dead:-
>
> "It was a shabby transaction, and the first of a series of episodes in which Edward was to use parliament to validate his interference in property descent. This was one aspect of his use of parliament as the appropriate arena in which to record the settlement of disputes or the transmission of land - a role that was to be further developed by Henry VII. It was not that parliament in any sense 'made' the settlement, but it was clearly thought to confer additional authority upon it, not least because it meant that the settlement could not be unpicked without bringing the issue back to parliament."
Carol responds:
So she places the blame solely on Edward (where, IMO, it belongs). It looks to me as if Richard afterward did what he could to lessen the injury to his mother-in-law (George, also her son-in-law, did nothing to help her), and, later, as king, did what he could to undo Edward's tyranny (the wardship provision, making benevolences illegal) and to help widows (especially, maybe, if they were Nevilles). Though, of course, Richard also had to protect himself and Anne (and, indirectly, her mother) from brother George. If he'd gotten all the lands, the countess would have had to stay in sanctuary.
Thanks again for all your help in the discussion of Richard and Parliament.
Carol, wishing we could issue an act of attainder against Yahoo
Marie wrote:
>
> And this is the editorial comment on the act whereby the Countess' lands were divided between Clarence and Gloucester as though she were dead:-
>
> "It was a shabby transaction, and the first of a series of episodes in which Edward was to use parliament to validate his interference in property descent. This was one aspect of his use of parliament as the appropriate arena in which to record the settlement of disputes or the transmission of land - a role that was to be further developed by Henry VII. It was not that parliament in any sense 'made' the settlement, but it was clearly thought to confer additional authority upon it, not least because it meant that the settlement could not be unpicked without bringing the issue back to parliament."
Carol responds:
So she places the blame solely on Edward (where, IMO, it belongs). It looks to me as if Richard afterward did what he could to lessen the injury to his mother-in-law (George, also her son-in-law, did nothing to help her), and, later, as king, did what he could to undo Edward's tyranny (the wardship provision, making benevolences illegal) and to help widows (especially, maybe, if they were Nevilles). Though, of course, Richard also had to protect himself and Anne (and, indirectly, her mother) from brother George. If he'd gotten all the lands, the countess would have had to stay in sanctuary.
Thanks again for all your help in the discussion of Richard and Parliament.
Carol, wishing we could issue an act of attainder against Yahoo
Re: Countess of Warwick's lands
2012-11-09 22:28:05
I can't see how Richard can be cleared of involvement from this paragraph.
Suggesting that Richard stepped in and took his share only to ensure the
countess was allowed to leave sanctuary is a bit of a leap. The two brothers
fought bitterly over who got what and a settlement was reached, as reflected
in the Act. Edward was, as king, no doubt the one who ensured its passage
through parliament. The settlement was reached by the three of them.
Stripping the countess of her lands (for whatever reason) is hardly an
example of helping widows. Richard's later actions (the countess's removal
from sanctuary) do help ameliorate the effects, but he wasn't a passive
bystander. From time to time, during his life and short reign, Richard's
actions weren't particularly noble. The treatment of the countess of Warwick
was one of these times.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:45:13 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Countess of Warwick's lands
Yahoo is still not cooperating, so I can't thread this post.
Marie wrote:
>
> And this is the editorial comment on the act whereby the Countess' lands were
divided between Clarence and Gloucester as though she were dead:-
>
> "It was a shabby transaction, and the first of a series of episodes in which
Edward was to use parliament to validate his interference in property descent.
This was one aspect of his use of parliament as the appropriate arena in which
to record the settlement of disputes or the transmission of land - a role that
was to be further developed by Henry VII. It was not that parliament in any
sense 'made' the settlement, but it was clearly thought to confer additional
authority upon it, not least because it meant that the settlement could not be
unpicked without bringing the issue back to parliament."
Carol responds:
So she places the blame solely on Edward (where, IMO, it belongs). It looks
to me as if Richard afterward did what he could to lessen the injury to his
mother-in-law (George, also her son-in-law, did nothing to help her), and,
later, as king, did what he could to undo Edward's tyranny (the wardship
provision, making benevolences illegal) and to help widows (especially,
maybe, if they were Nevilles). Though, of course, Richard also had to
protect himself and Anne (and, indirectly, her mother) from brother George.
If he'd gotten all the lands, the countess would have had to stay in
sanctuary.
Thanks again for all your help in the discussion of Richard and Parliament.
Carol, wishing we could issue an act of attainder against Yahoo
Suggesting that Richard stepped in and took his share only to ensure the
countess was allowed to leave sanctuary is a bit of a leap. The two brothers
fought bitterly over who got what and a settlement was reached, as reflected
in the Act. Edward was, as king, no doubt the one who ensured its passage
through parliament. The settlement was reached by the three of them.
Stripping the countess of her lands (for whatever reason) is hardly an
example of helping widows. Richard's later actions (the countess's removal
from sanctuary) do help ameliorate the effects, but he wasn't a passive
bystander. From time to time, during his life and short reign, Richard's
actions weren't particularly noble. The treatment of the countess of Warwick
was one of these times.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:45:13 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Countess of Warwick's lands
Yahoo is still not cooperating, so I can't thread this post.
Marie wrote:
>
> And this is the editorial comment on the act whereby the Countess' lands were
divided between Clarence and Gloucester as though she were dead:-
>
> "It was a shabby transaction, and the first of a series of episodes in which
Edward was to use parliament to validate his interference in property descent.
This was one aspect of his use of parliament as the appropriate arena in which
to record the settlement of disputes or the transmission of land - a role that
was to be further developed by Henry VII. It was not that parliament in any
sense 'made' the settlement, but it was clearly thought to confer additional
authority upon it, not least because it meant that the settlement could not be
unpicked without bringing the issue back to parliament."
Carol responds:
So she places the blame solely on Edward (where, IMO, it belongs). It looks
to me as if Richard afterward did what he could to lessen the injury to his
mother-in-law (George, also her son-in-law, did nothing to help her), and,
later, as king, did what he could to undo Edward's tyranny (the wardship
provision, making benevolences illegal) and to help widows (especially,
maybe, if they were Nevilles). Though, of course, Richard also had to
protect himself and Anne (and, indirectly, her mother) from brother George.
If he'd gotten all the lands, the countess would have had to stay in
sanctuary.
Thanks again for all your help in the discussion of Richard and Parliament.
Carol, wishing we could issue an act of attainder against Yahoo
Re: Countess of Warwick's lands
2012-11-10 02:03:20
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I can't see how Richard can be cleared of involvement from this paragraph. Suggesting that Richard stepped in and took his share only to ensure the countess was allowed to leave sanctuary is a bit of a leap. <snip> Edward was, as king, no doubt the one who ensured its passage through parliament. The settlement was reached by the three of them.
> Stripping the countess of her lands (for whatever reason) is hardly an
> example of helping widows. Richard's later actions (the countess's removal
> from sanctuary) do help ameliorate the effects, but he wasn't a passive
> bystander. From time to time, during his life and short reign, Richard's
> actions weren't particularly noble. The treatment of the countess of Warwick
> was one of these times.
Carol responds:
I didn't say that Richard could be cleared of involvement, only of responsibility for the act of Parliament, which Horrox makes clear is Edward's doing. Certainly, he took care to make sure that George wouldn't try to take the lands assigned to him on false charges of a forced marriage. Had he not done so, matters would have gone worse for the countess and her daughter Anne as well as for Richard. Nor did I say that Richard *only* took his share to ensure that the countess could leave sanctuary or that stripping the countess of her lands was a way of helping widows. I said that he did his best to make amends to her for the "shabby provision" by enabling her to leave sanctuary and live at Middleham. He couldn't undo the act of Parliament, but at least he could soften its effects, in marked contrast to George, who did nothing to help her.
Since Horrox speaks only of Edward and not of Richard, I think that my conclusions *are* justified. It seems that we will just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, please read my posts a little more carefully next time. It might help to quote instead of paraphrase.
Carol
>
> I can't see how Richard can be cleared of involvement from this paragraph. Suggesting that Richard stepped in and took his share only to ensure the countess was allowed to leave sanctuary is a bit of a leap. <snip> Edward was, as king, no doubt the one who ensured its passage through parliament. The settlement was reached by the three of them.
> Stripping the countess of her lands (for whatever reason) is hardly an
> example of helping widows. Richard's later actions (the countess's removal
> from sanctuary) do help ameliorate the effects, but he wasn't a passive
> bystander. From time to time, during his life and short reign, Richard's
> actions weren't particularly noble. The treatment of the countess of Warwick
> was one of these times.
Carol responds:
I didn't say that Richard could be cleared of involvement, only of responsibility for the act of Parliament, which Horrox makes clear is Edward's doing. Certainly, he took care to make sure that George wouldn't try to take the lands assigned to him on false charges of a forced marriage. Had he not done so, matters would have gone worse for the countess and her daughter Anne as well as for Richard. Nor did I say that Richard *only* took his share to ensure that the countess could leave sanctuary or that stripping the countess of her lands was a way of helping widows. I said that he did his best to make amends to her for the "shabby provision" by enabling her to leave sanctuary and live at Middleham. He couldn't undo the act of Parliament, but at least he could soften its effects, in marked contrast to George, who did nothing to help her.
Since Horrox speaks only of Edward and not of Richard, I think that my conclusions *are* justified. It seems that we will just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, please read my posts a little more carefully next time. It might help to quote instead of paraphrase.
Carol
Re: Countess of Warwick's lands
2012-11-10 17:47:58
My apologies, Carol. I will try again, with quotes.
"So she places the blame solely on Edward "
No, this simply suggests that Edward was the one who presented the scheme to
parliament.
"It looks to me as if Richard afterward did what he could to lessen the
injury to his mother-in-law"
There's nothing in the Act that suggests that anyone did what they could to
lessen the injury to the countess. The countess was stripped of her property
'as if she were naturally dead', I see nothing in that to suggest anyone,
even Richard, made any attempt to lessen the injury. Taking her from
sanctuary to Middleham and giving her a small allowance can't, in my view,
be interpreted as lessening the injury.
"and to help widows (especially, maybe, if they were Nevilles)"
The countess of Warwick (a Nevill by marriage) was stripped of her property
'as if she were naturally dead'. I can't see this as any kind of 'help'.
"Though, of course, Richard also had to protect himself and Anne"
I"m not at all sure I understand this. What did Richard need to protect
himself and Anne against? The countess retaining her property?
"and, indirectly, her mother"
I fail to see how stripping the countess of Warwick of her property 'as of
she were naturally dead' can in any way be interpreted as 'protecting' her.
"If [Clarence]'d gotten all the lands, the countess would have had to stay
in sanctuary."
How can you, or anyone, possibly know this?
In your later post, you expressed the wish that we could 'agree to
disagree'. I've acceded to this request (from Marie) twice now, and twice
the discussion has been revived. As I've said, I really don't mind being in
the minority here. I don't mind being one of only a handful of moderates who
don't think that Richard could do nothing wrong. I don't even mind the
borderline rude responses, or the tone in which some of them are written.
Anyone here can have their saintly version of Richard, if that's what they
want. I choose a more realistic one. If that offends, there's not a lot I
can do about it.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:45:13 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Countess of Warwick's lands
Yahoo is still not cooperating, so I can't thread this post.
Marie wrote:
>
> And this is the editorial comment on the act whereby the Countess' lands were
divided between Clarence and Gloucester as though she were dead:-
>
> "It was a shabby transaction, and the first of a series of episodes in which
Edward was to use parliament to validate his interference in property descent.
This was one aspect of his use of parliament as the appropriate arena in which
to record the settlement of disputes or the transmission of land - a role that
was to be further developed by Henry VII. It was not that parliament in any
sense 'made' the settlement, but it was clearly thought to confer additional
authority upon it, not least because it meant that the settlement could not be
unpicked without bringing the issue back to parliament."
Carol responds:
So she places the blame solely on Edward (where, IMO, it belongs). It looks
to me as if Richard afterward did what he could to lessen the injury to his
mother-in-law (George, also her son-in-law, did nothing to help her), and,
later, as king, did what he could to undo Edward's tyranny (the wardship
provision, making benevolences illegal) and to help widows (especially,
maybe, if they were Nevilles). Though, of course, Richard also had to
protect himself and Anne (and, indirectly, her mother) from brother George.
If he'd gotten all the lands, the countess would have had to stay in
sanctuary.
Thanks again for all your help in the discussion of Richard and Parliament.
Carol, wishing we could issue an act of attainder against Yahoo
"So she places the blame solely on Edward "
No, this simply suggests that Edward was the one who presented the scheme to
parliament.
"It looks to me as if Richard afterward did what he could to lessen the
injury to his mother-in-law"
There's nothing in the Act that suggests that anyone did what they could to
lessen the injury to the countess. The countess was stripped of her property
'as if she were naturally dead', I see nothing in that to suggest anyone,
even Richard, made any attempt to lessen the injury. Taking her from
sanctuary to Middleham and giving her a small allowance can't, in my view,
be interpreted as lessening the injury.
"and to help widows (especially, maybe, if they were Nevilles)"
The countess of Warwick (a Nevill by marriage) was stripped of her property
'as if she were naturally dead'. I can't see this as any kind of 'help'.
"Though, of course, Richard also had to protect himself and Anne"
I"m not at all sure I understand this. What did Richard need to protect
himself and Anne against? The countess retaining her property?
"and, indirectly, her mother"
I fail to see how stripping the countess of Warwick of her property 'as of
she were naturally dead' can in any way be interpreted as 'protecting' her.
"If [Clarence]'d gotten all the lands, the countess would have had to stay
in sanctuary."
How can you, or anyone, possibly know this?
In your later post, you expressed the wish that we could 'agree to
disagree'. I've acceded to this request (from Marie) twice now, and twice
the discussion has been revived. As I've said, I really don't mind being in
the minority here. I don't mind being one of only a handful of moderates who
don't think that Richard could do nothing wrong. I don't even mind the
borderline rude responses, or the tone in which some of them are written.
Anyone here can have their saintly version of Richard, if that's what they
want. I choose a more realistic one. If that offends, there's not a lot I
can do about it.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:45:13 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Countess of Warwick's lands
Yahoo is still not cooperating, so I can't thread this post.
Marie wrote:
>
> And this is the editorial comment on the act whereby the Countess' lands were
divided between Clarence and Gloucester as though she were dead:-
>
> "It was a shabby transaction, and the first of a series of episodes in which
Edward was to use parliament to validate his interference in property descent.
This was one aspect of his use of parliament as the appropriate arena in which
to record the settlement of disputes or the transmission of land - a role that
was to be further developed by Henry VII. It was not that parliament in any
sense 'made' the settlement, but it was clearly thought to confer additional
authority upon it, not least because it meant that the settlement could not be
unpicked without bringing the issue back to parliament."
Carol responds:
So she places the blame solely on Edward (where, IMO, it belongs). It looks
to me as if Richard afterward did what he could to lessen the injury to his
mother-in-law (George, also her son-in-law, did nothing to help her), and,
later, as king, did what he could to undo Edward's tyranny (the wardship
provision, making benevolences illegal) and to help widows (especially,
maybe, if they were Nevilles). Though, of course, Richard also had to
protect himself and Anne (and, indirectly, her mother) from brother George.
If he'd gotten all the lands, the countess would have had to stay in
sanctuary.
Thanks again for all your help in the discussion of Richard and Parliament.
Carol, wishing we could issue an act of attainder against Yahoo
Re: Countess of Warwick's lands
2012-11-10 19:37:57
Karen wrote:
><snip>
>
> In your later post, you expressed the wish that we could 'agree to
> disagree'. I've acceded to this request (from Marie) twice now, and twice the discussion has been revived. <snip>
Carol responds:
I'm caught in an awkward position here. I can continue the discussion or accede to my own request to end it. I think my best bet is to drop the subject as we are never going to agree and it's pointless to continue. But thanks for quoting rather than paraphrasing this time!
Carol
><snip>
>
> In your later post, you expressed the wish that we could 'agree to
> disagree'. I've acceded to this request (from Marie) twice now, and twice the discussion has been revived. <snip>
Carol responds:
I'm caught in an awkward position here. I can continue the discussion or accede to my own request to end it. I think my best bet is to drop the subject as we are never going to agree and it's pointless to continue. But thanks for quoting rather than paraphrasing this time!
Carol
Re: Countess of Warwick's lands
2012-11-11 00:45:50
Carol, I'm more than happy to discuss this, or anything else that interests
me. As I said, I have no problem holding a minority view in this. (There are
many areas of discussion here were I don't hold a minority view.) Suggesting
to me (or anyone else) that we 'agree to disagree' is also fine, but if the
discussion then continues only among those who share the same view (who have
'agreed to agree') it can get a little frustrating. I don't take
disagreement personally, unless it's expressed in personal terms. It'd be a
shame to drop this (or any other) subject entirely because two or more
people disagree.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:37:56 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Countess of Warwick's lands
Karen wrote:
><snip>
>
> In your later post, you expressed the wish that we could 'agree to
> disagree'. I've acceded to this request (from Marie) twice now, and twice the
discussion has been revived. <snip>
Carol responds:
I'm caught in an awkward position here. I can continue the discussion or
accede to my own request to end it. I think my best bet is to drop the
subject as we are never going to agree and it's pointless to continue. But
thanks for quoting rather than paraphrasing this time!
Carol
me. As I said, I have no problem holding a minority view in this. (There are
many areas of discussion here were I don't hold a minority view.) Suggesting
to me (or anyone else) that we 'agree to disagree' is also fine, but if the
discussion then continues only among those who share the same view (who have
'agreed to agree') it can get a little frustrating. I don't take
disagreement personally, unless it's expressed in personal terms. It'd be a
shame to drop this (or any other) subject entirely because two or more
people disagree.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:37:56 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Countess of Warwick's lands
Karen wrote:
><snip>
>
> In your later post, you expressed the wish that we could 'agree to
> disagree'. I've acceded to this request (from Marie) twice now, and twice the
discussion has been revived. <snip>
Carol responds:
I'm caught in an awkward position here. I can continue the discussion or
accede to my own request to end it. I think my best bet is to drop the
subject as we are never going to agree and it's pointless to continue. But
thanks for quoting rather than paraphrasing this time!
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.