Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:


"On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"


I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.

Katy

"Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
>
>
> "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
>
>
> I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
>
> Katy
>

It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to
Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the
time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns
for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy
orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:44 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

"Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they
have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an
alternative reason...? Eileen




<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaThydDhuB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjU3NjY2OQ--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcHUzNmFwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUyNTc2NjY5>
Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=18730/stime=1352576669/nc1=4025338/nc2=3848627/nc3=5008817>

Elizabeth Woodville was 43, and the likelihood of Down's increases from
the age of 35.

Best wishes
Christine

On 10/11/2012 19:44, EileenB wrote:
> "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>> I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
>>
>>
>> "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
>>
>>
>> I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
>>
>> Katy
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

It's a shame it isnt known for sure what were the circumstances of La Woodville 'retiring' to Bermondsey Abbey. There are varying view on this. If it were known for sure that she was sent there under a cloud, i.e. for supporting one of the pretenders to the throne, it would look very likely indeed that Elizabeth believed at least one of her sons to still be alive. And if she did believe this it would be pretty certain that this was indeed the case. Damn and Blast...we need to know! Eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to
> Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the
> time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns
> for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy
> orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:44 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
>
> "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they
> have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an
> alternative reason...? Eileen
>
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaThydDhuB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjU3NjY2OQ--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcHUzNmFwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUyNTc2NjY5>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =18730/stime=1352576669/nc1=4025338/nc2=3848627/nc3=5008817>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah yes! Downs Syndrome..It makes you wonder doesnt it?..How sad they felt the need to send little Bridget away from home...Eileen

--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Elizabeth Woodville was 43, and the likelihood of Down's increases from
> the age of 35.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> On 10/11/2012 19:44, EileenB wrote:
> > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >> I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> >>
> >>
> >> "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> >>
> >>
> >> I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> >>
> >> Katy
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>

Has anyone read Sarah Dunant's novel "Sacred Hearts"?  It's about a girl who is forced into a convent in renaissance Italy.  Apparently in Italy at least it was not uncommon to force younger daughters to become nuns because families couldn't afford the dowrys should they marry (the dowry that had to be given to the church was less).  I'm not sure if this was an issue in the UK though but I suppose it was a good way though of getting rid of a daughter who was not marriageable due to mental or physical infirmity.   


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 10 November 2012, 19:44
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

 
"Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
>
>
> "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances,
some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
>
>
> I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
>
> Katy
>

Hi Liz...No I havent read that book, sounds interesting. I wouldnt be surprised at all if that went on.
Ive noticed that the famous Royal window in Canterbury Cathedral only shows 5 daughters although there was six. A seventh daughter died as a baby. No Bridget?
Eileen


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone read Sarah Dunant's novel "Sacred Hearts"?  It's about a girl who is forced into a convent in renaissance Italy.  Apparently in Italy at least it was not uncommon to force younger daughters to become nuns because families couldn't afford the dowrys should they marry (the dowry that had to be given to the church was less).  I'm not sure if this was an issue in the UK though but I suppose it was a good way though of getting rid of a daughter who was not marriageable due to mental or physical infirmity.   
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 10 November 2012, 19:44
> Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
>
>  
> "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> >
> >
> > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances,
> some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> >
> >
> > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

That is fascinating. Being me, I have two questions, though:-
1) Would a 7-year-old have been allowed to become a nun?
2) To take the vows, would you have to be able to demonstrate proper understanding?

Regarding (1), it seems from what I can gather that a seven-year-old wouldn't have been able to be come a nun as such: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02443a.htm
just scroll down to the heading 'Oblates'.

Regarding (2) I suppose it wouldn't have been any stricter than the rules for marriages, which certainly seem to have allowed people of fairly limited intelligence to commit. Katy, can you remember at all where the "somewhere" might have been where you read that Bridget was mentally deficient?

Anyway, I guess Bridget was probably placed in the convent aged seven to be educated there with a view to her joining the Order when she was older. Can anyone shed more light on this?

It maybe wasn't as uncommon as we might imagine for medieval nuns to get pregnant:

http://www.medievalists.net/2012/04/02/sex-enclosure-and-scandal-in-medieval-monasteries/

http://www.ashevillelist.com/history/medieval-women.htm

Interestingly, I do recall a brief piece in the Ricardian many years back about little Bridget. It seems that when Elizabeth Woodville dashed into Westminster Sanctuary with her daughters in 1483 Bridget was not with them - she was in the royal residence in the city known as the Wardrobe. Shortly after his arrival Richard had extra pillows sent over for her because she wasn't well.

Marie





--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> >
> >
> > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> >
> >
> > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

Hmmmm...according to Wiki...Bridget was born in 1480.....Thus if she was placed in a convent when she was 7, this was when her sister was Queen. Maybe her mother did not have much say in the matter.

I wonder why, as a poorly 3 year old she was not with her mother at Westminster...

Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> That is fascinating. Being me, I have two questions, though:-
> 1) Would a 7-year-old have been allowed to become a nun?
> 2) To take the vows, would you have to be able to demonstrate proper understanding?
>
> Regarding (1), it seems from what I can gather that a seven-year-old wouldn't have been able to be come a nun as such: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02443a.htm
> just scroll down to the heading 'Oblates'.
>
> Regarding (2) I suppose it wouldn't have been any stricter than the rules for marriages, which certainly seem to have allowed people of fairly limited intelligence to commit. Katy, can you remember at all where the "somewhere" might have been where you read that Bridget was mentally deficient?
>
> Anyway, I guess Bridget was probably placed in the convent aged seven to be educated there with a view to her joining the Order when she was older. Can anyone shed more light on this?
>
> It maybe wasn't as uncommon as we might imagine for medieval nuns to get pregnant:
>
> http://www.medievalists.net/2012/04/02/sex-enclosure-and-scandal-in-medieval-monasteries/
>
> http://www.ashevillelist.com/history/medieval-women.htm
>
> Interestingly, I do recall a brief piece in the Ricardian many years back about little Bridget. It seems that when Elizabeth Woodville dashed into Westminster Sanctuary with her daughters in 1483 Bridget was not with them - she was in the royal residence in the city known as the Wardrobe. Shortly after his arrival Richard had extra pillows sent over for her because she wasn't well.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > >
> > >
> > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmmm...according to Wiki...Bridget was born in 1480.....Thus if she was placed in a convent when she was 7, this was when her sister was Queen. Maybe her mother did not have much say in the matter.
>
> I wonder why, as a poorly 3 year old she was not with her mother at Westminster...
>
> Eileen


Hi Eileen,
By the time Bridget was sent to the convent her mother was sequestered in Bermondsey. I think we discussed the Bermondsey business on the forum once. Personally I can't see that it is likely to have been voluntary. It came at the time of Henry VII's crisis council before the Lambert Simnel invasion, and Dorset was stuck in the Tower at the same time. Her lands were taken but it was many many months before she was given an allowance - she had to beg the King for money. Also her will makes it very clear that she did not have the sort of money she thought she needed to make suitable bequests to her children; she couldn't even leave them objects because they needed to be sold to pay her debts:-
'Item, where I have no wordely goodes to do the Quenes grace my derest doughter a pleaser with, nether to reward any of my children according to my hart and mynde, I besech Almyghty God to blisse here Grace, with all her noble issue; and with as good hart and mynde as is to me posible I geve her Grace my blesing, and all the forsaide my children.
Item I will that such smal stufe and goodes that I have be disposed evenly in the contentacion of my dettes and for the helth of my sowle as farre as they will extende. Item yf any of my bloode wil bie [ie buy] any of my saide stufe or goodes to me perteyning I will that they have the prefermente be fore any other."

I wouldn't like to label her as a cold-hearted mother; to my mind she doesn't come across that way in her will. We don't know why 2-year-old Bridget wasn't with her mother and sisters in May 1483. Perhaps she wasn't the only one (do we really know?). Maybe the infants lived in a separate household; or maybe she had something that was feared to be infectious. Or - anything else you can think of.
Her grandmother Cecily Neville did mention Bridget in her will, viz:
"Also I geve to my doughter [sic] Brigitte the boke of Legenda Aurea in velem, a boke of the lif of Saint Kateryn of Sene, a boke of saint Matilde." All suitable stuff for a nun. Cecily referred to all her grandchildren as her sons and daughters, incidentally. I've not seen that anywhere else.
Of course it was usual for rich families with an ample number of children to groom a son or daughter, or both, for the Church. But somehow I have a feeling it may have been the two ultra-religious grannies who had most to do with this. Even Elizabeth of York may not have had a say.
Katy, does Sharon Penman give a source for Agnes of Eltham? I'm wondering why she was called 'of Eltham'. Was it because she was raised there, or could Bridget have been removed to Eltham Palace to give birth? Or could the mother have been someone else entirely?
Marie





>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > That is fascinating. Being me, I have two questions, though:-
> > 1) Would a 7-year-old have been allowed to become a nun?
> > 2) To take the vows, would you have to be able to demonstrate proper understanding?
> >
> > Regarding (1), it seems from what I can gather that a seven-year-old wouldn't have been able to be come a nun as such: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02443a.htm
> > just scroll down to the heading 'Oblates'.
> >
> > Regarding (2) I suppose it wouldn't have been any stricter than the rules for marriages, which certainly seem to have allowed people of fairly limited intelligence to commit. Katy, can you remember at all where the "somewhere" might have been where you read that Bridget was mentally deficient?
> >
> > Anyway, I guess Bridget was probably placed in the convent aged seven to be educated there with a view to her joining the Order when she was older. Can anyone shed more light on this?
> >
> > It maybe wasn't as uncommon as we might imagine for medieval nuns to get pregnant:
> >
> > http://www.medievalists.net/2012/04/02/sex-enclosure-and-scandal-in-medieval-monasteries/
> >
> > http://www.ashevillelist.com/history/medieval-women.htm
> >
> > Interestingly, I do recall a brief piece in the Ricardian many years back about little Bridget. It seems that when Elizabeth Woodville dashed into Westminster Sanctuary with her daughters in 1483 Bridget was not with them - she was in the royal residence in the city known as the Wardrobe. Shortly after his arrival Richard had extra pillows sent over for her because she wasn't well.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I've always assumed the window was made after the death of Princess Mary.
Marie


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Liz...No I havent read that book, sounds interesting. I wouldnt be surprised at all if that went on.
> Ive noticed that the famous Royal window in Canterbury Cathedral only shows 5 daughters although there was six. A seventh daughter died as a baby. No Bridget?
> Eileen
>
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone read Sarah Dunant's novel "Sacred Hearts"?  It's about a girl who is forced into a convent in renaissance Italy.  Apparently in Italy at least it was not uncommon to force younger daughters to become nuns because families couldn't afford the dowrys should they marry (the dowry that had to be given to the church was less).  I'm not sure if this was an issue in the UK though but I suppose it was a good way though of getting rid of a daughter who was not marriageable due to mental or physical infirmity.   
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 10 November 2012, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
> >
> >  
> > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > >
> > >
> > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances,
> > some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
> Elizabeth Woodville was 43, and the likelihood of Down's increases from
> the age of 35.



Exactly what I was thinking, Christine.

Katy

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
[snip]

> Katy, does Sharon Penman give a source for Agnes of Eltham? I'm wondering why she was called 'of Eltham'. Was it because she was raised there, or could Bridget have been removed to Eltham Palace to give birth? Or could the mother have been someone else entirely?
> Marie


Naturally, I don't recall where I read that Bridget was mentally deficient.

However, I consulted the sometimes-accurate Wikipedia on Bridget of Eltham. It says she was born at Eltham, London and was baptized by Edward Story, Bishop of Chichester. Age 7 she was entrusted to Dartford Priory, Kent and remained there the rest of her life.

The rather poorly-edited piece goes on that the orpah and ward of Dartford Piory, Agnes of Eltham, may have been Bridget's illegitimate daughter. Then it says "She maintained correspondence throughout her life with her sister the queen, who also paid for her minor expenses as well as the minor expenses of Agnes." "She" obviously being Bridget, though the subject of the previous sentence was Agnes. If Bridget corresponded with her sister Elizabeth, she was literate, thus couldn't have been profoundly retarded.

There is a separate entry on Agnes of Eltham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_Eltham

which says she married Adam Langstroth, member of a landed Yorkshire family, "with a considerable dowry." She gave birth to a son, Christopher, in 1530 and she died in 1532, aged 32. Her death two years after the birth of one child, at what is usually a healthy age, suggests to me that she died in childbirth or of a complication of pregnancy, as so often happened.

Katy

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


Oh, and the Wikipedia articles do give sources:

For Bridget:



^ a b "thePeerage.com - Person Page 10166". thePeerage.com. compiled by Darryl Lundy. Retrieved 15 October 2011.
^ Hoak, Dale (1980), "Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland: Politics and Political Control, 1549–53", in Loach, Jennifer; Tittler, Robert, The Mid-Tudor Polity c. 1540–1560, London: Macmillan, pp. 29–51, ISBN 0-333-24528-8



For Agnes



^ Jeffery Hamilton (2010), "The Plantagenets: A History of a Dynasty", Continuum, 246 pages, ISBN 1-4411-5712-3
^ Hoak, Dale (1980), "Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland: Politics and Political Control, 1549–53", in Loach, Jennifer; Tittler, Robert, The Mid-Tudor Polity c. 1540–1560, London: Macmillan, pp. 29–51, ISBN 0-333-24528-8

And I happened upon a blog concerning Bridget, by author Nancy Bilyeau:

http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html

Katy

Hi Eileen and others
Llewelyn the Last's daughter, Gwenllian, the last (original) Princess of Wales, was placed in a nunnery to prevent her marrying and having children. It is a very sad story. See the website below.
http://www.britainexpress.com/wales/history/last-princess.htm
Possibly the same situation applied to Bridget.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
>
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> >
> >
> > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> >
> >
> > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?

Carol responds:

Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.

Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.

Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.

At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.

Carol

Eileen wrote:
<snip>
> Ive noticed that the famous Royal window in Canterbury Cathedral only shows 5 daughters although there was six. A seventh daughter died as a baby. No Bridget?
> Eileen

Carol responds:

Mary, the second daughter, died at fourteen. That would leave Elizabeth, Cecily, Catherine, Anne, and Bridget (not counting Margaret, who died a a baby.

I think it's important that Richard, who would have seen little Bridget when Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary, made no special provisions for her, instead including her in his promise to find suitable husbands for all his nieces when they reached marriageable age.

I see no reason to assume that Bridget was mentally deficient. I think her banishment to a nunnery had more to do with Henry's punishing her mother and/or being a tightwad. It seems too much of a coincidence for Bridget to enter a convent (for her education though she did later become a nun) in the same year as her mother was sent to Bermondsey unless the two were connected.

Carol

Having read the Wikpedia entry on Bridget of York, I note that it says
that she was destined for the Church from babyhood. This was not unknown
- though maybe less so in the later 15th century that heretofore - and
with so many daughters they could certainly spare one for the good of
their souls. However, in the circumstances one might have expected her
to become abbess - perhaps Agnes put a stop to that.....

Where was it said that Richard was thought of for the Church when young?
Similar reasoning before Edmund died. And, of all people, Henry (though
he was the heir's spare, and there were no more potential kings to
follow him).

Best wishes
Christine

On 10/11/2012 23:49, oregon_katy wrote:
> Naturally, I don't recall where I read that Bridget was mentally deficient.
>
> However, I consulted the sometimes-accurate Wikipedia on Bridget of Eltham. It says she was born at Eltham, London and was baptized by Edward Story, Bishop of Chichester. Age 7 she was entrusted to Dartford Priory, Kent and remained there the rest of her life.
>
> The rather poorly-edited piece goes on that the orpah and ward of Dartford Piory, Agnes of Eltham, may have been Bridget's illegitimate daughter. Then it says "She maintained correspondence throughout her life with her sister the queen, who also paid for her minor expenses as well as the minor expenses of Agnes." "She" obviously being Bridget, though the subject of the previous sentence was Agnes. If Bridget corresponded with her sister Elizabeth, she was literate, thus couldn't have been profoundly retarded.
>
> There is a separate entry on Agnes of Eltham
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_Eltham
>
> which says she married Adam Langstroth, member of a landed Yorkshire family, "with a considerable dowry." She gave birth to a son, Christopher, in 1530 and she died in 1532, aged 32. Her death two years after the birth of one child, at what is usually a healthy age, suggests to me that she died in childbirth or of a complication of pregnancy, as so often happened.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

Marie wrote:
<snip>
>
> Anyway, I guess Bridget was probably placed in the convent aged seven to be educated there with a view to her joining the Order when she was older. <snip>

<snip>

> Interestingly, I do recall a brief piece in the Ricardian many years back about little Bridget. It seems that when Elizabeth Woodville dashed into Westminster Sanctuary with her daughters in 1483 Bridget was not with them - she was in the royal residence in the city known as the Wardrobe. Shortly after his arrival Richard had extra pillows sent over for her because she wasn't well.

Carol responds:

I agree that Bridget was placed in the convent to be educated, possibly at her mother's request when she found that she couldn't care for the little girl adequately thanks to Henry's restrictions on her income; Bridget certainly did become a nun later (which, along with the books that her grandmother Cecily willed to her, seems to indicate that she wasn't mentally deficient. Possibly, that idea seems arose as an explanation for sending her away from court at such a young age. But as I've noted elsewhere, her mother's "treason" and subsequent "retirement" to Bermondsey seems a better explanation, at least to me.

I ran across the same passage about Bridget's illness on the Richard III Society American branch site, which states:

"In the Wardrobe Accounts of the reign of Richard the Third, between the 9th of April, 1483, and the 2nd of February, 1484, the following entry occurs relating to her: 'To the Lady Brygit, one of the daughters of K. Edward IIIIth., being sick in the said Wardrobe for to have for her use at that time two long pillows of fustian, stuffed with down, and two pillow beres of Holland cloth unto them."

Since the accounts begin while Richard is still Protector (and has not yet arrived in London) and extend to early February 1484, nearly seven months into his reign, it's hard to say what the situation was. The source I quoted suggests that the incident occurred before Elizabeth Woodville went into sanctuary, but I don't think so because it refers to Bridget as "the Lady Brygit" rather than "the Princess Brygit." On the other hand, would she have been referred to as "Lady" after she and her brothers and sisters had been declared bastards? Her brother Edward (or John of Gloucester) was referred to in the Wardrobe accounts as "the Lord Bastard.")

If only these records had individual dates! Maybe something could be determined by chronology--is this entry before or after accounts for either coronation (Richard's or Edward's canceled one)?

If Richard arranged for the pillows and so forth to be sent to Bridget, it's a sign of his consideration for his nieces. But when was she sent to the Wardrobe and by whom, and was she there the whole time that Elizabeth was in sanctuary? Surely, she would have been returned to her mother as soon as she was well.

Carol

Sending a mentally challenged child to an asylum, Monastery or nunnery, sadly has only stopped in recent memory, think of Bedlum where the patients were viewed by paying spectators
Only recently have our views on mental illness changed and only in the west Many other countries still treat mental illness similar to the 12th century
Remember also that a female at this time was certainly not a free woman but a commodity to trade.
George

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 10, 2012, at 3:42 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Ah yes! Downs Syndrome..It makes you wonder doesnt it?..How sad they felt the need to send little Bridget away from home...Eileen
>
> --- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Elizabeth Woodville was 43, and the likelihood of Down's increases from
> > the age of 35.
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Christine
> >
> > On 10/11/2012 19:44, EileenB wrote:
> > > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >> I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > >>
> > >> Katy
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes
> > Christine
> >
> > Christine Headley
> > Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
> >
>
>

Hi, Katy!



For kindle junkies, like myself - I checked and Jeffrey Hamilton's new
(2010) book, *The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty* is available for
kindle at a price of $18.12.



The 3 readers' comments are quite laudatory.



So, being a terminal impulse buyer, I bought it.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 8:08 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter







--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:

Oh, and the Wikipedia articles do give sources:

For Bridget:

^ a b "thePeerage.com - Person Page 10166". thePeerage.com. compiled by
Darryl Lundy. Retrieved 15 October 2011.
^ Hoak, Dale (1980), "Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland: Politics
and Political Control, 1549-53", in Loach, Jennifer; Tittler, Robert, The
Mid-Tudor Polity c. 1540-1560, London: Macmillan, pp. 29-51, ISBN
0-333-24528-8

For Agnes

^ Jeffery Hamilton (2010), "The Plantagenets: A History of a Dynasty",
Continuum, 246 pages, ISBN 1-4411-5712-3
^ Hoak, Dale (1980), "Rehabilitating the Duke of Northumberland: Politics
and Political Control, 1549-53", in Loach, Jennifer; Tittler, Robert, The
Mid-Tudor Polity c. 1540-1560, London: Macmillan, pp. 29-51, ISBN
0-333-24528-8

And I happened upon a blog concerning Bridget, by author Nancy Bilyeau:

http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html

Katy

I've found some useful info on this in The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor..
Mary died just before her 15th birthday at Greenwich on May 1482. The windows are circa 1483ish so just could be that Mary is depicted in the window. Bridget would only have been around 3 years old when these windows were made.....too young to be among any of the princessess depicted...although of course we may have to allow for artistic licence.

Yes indeedy...what a coincidence Bridget was entered into the convent around the same time as her mother went to live in Bermondsey Abbey!

Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> <snip>
> > Ive noticed that the famous Royal window in Canterbury Cathedral only shows 5 daughters although there was six. A seventh daughter died as a baby. No Bridget?
> > Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Mary, the second daughter, died at fourteen. That would leave Elizabeth, Cecily, Catherine, Anne, and Bridget (not counting Margaret, who died a a baby.
>
> I think it's important that Richard, who would have seen little Bridget when Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary, made no special provisions for her, instead including her in his promise to find suitable husbands for all his nieces when they reached marriageable age.
>
> I see no reason to assume that Bridget was mentally deficient. I think her banishment to a nunnery had more to do with Henry's punishing her mother and/or being a tightwad. It seems too much of a coincidence for Bridget to enter a convent (for her education though she did later become a nun) in the same year as her mother was sent to Bermondsey unless the two were connected.
>
> Carol
>

George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Sending a mentally challenged child to an asylum, Monastery or nunnery, sadly has only stopped in recent memory, think of Bedlum where the patients were viewed by paying spectators
<snip>

Carol responds:

Why are so many people assuming that Bridget was mentally challenged? No one has posted any evidence to that effect. All we have is speculation as to why she was placed in the convent, and if we look at the timing, it must be connected with her mother's forced retirement to Bermondsey Abbey.

By the way, I think you mean Bedlam, which, ironically, meant Bethlehem.

Carol

Johanne Tournier wrote:

> For kindle junkies, like myself - I checked and Jeffrey Hamilton's new (2010) book, *The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty* is available for kindle at a price of $18.12.
>
> The 3 readers' comments are quite laudatory.

Carol responds:

Let us know what Hamilton says about Richard. $18.12 for a Kindle book is quite expensive, and generalist books tend to present a traditional or modified traditional view of Richard. I'm also curious as to whether Hamilton has anything good to say about King John.

Carol

P.S. I belatedly responded to your offlist messages--didn't see them till today!

If it was connected to her mother's 'forced retirement to Bermondsey Abbey"...all I can say is...well..more wickedness....!

If we say this was the case...and we may be wrong...could not Elizabeth of York given this small child, her little sister, a home in a more family/warmer environment? Yes I know it was a different mentality and I know Elizabeth was supposedly downtrodden by her husband and mother-in-law but surely she would have had some small power.

Another thought...Bridget was 7 years old when she was placed in the convent. Where had she been up until then. Had she been with her mother? Supposing she had been...and supposing she had nothing wrong with her at all...This makes it seem so wrong. I'm no admirer of La Woodville but as a mum/grandmother...I have to say, there must have been a fair bit of suffering here between mother and child even taking into consideration 15th century sensibilities. Eileen


> Why are so many people assuming that Bridget was mentally challenged? No one has posted any evidence to that effect. All we have is speculation as to why she was placed in the convent, and if we look at the timing, it must be connected with her mother's forced retirement to Bermondsey Abbey.
>
>
> Carol
>

On Nov 11, 2012, at 8:28 AM, EileenB wrote:

> I've found some useful info on this in The Royal Funerals of the
> House of York at Windsor..
> Mary died just before her 15th birthday at Greenwich on May 1482.
> The windows are circa 1483ish so just could be that Mary is depicted
> in the window. Bridget would only have been around 3 years old when
> these windows were made.....too young to be among any of the
> princessess depicted...although of course we may have to allow for
> artistic licence.
>
> Eileen

It does seem as if artistic license was often used. Case in point is
the tomb of William of Hatfield, son of Edward III, at York Minster.
Though the figure is that of a young boy, William was about four
months old when he died.

Gilda

Hi, Carol!



HAHAHAHAHA!!!!



I did a quick search for "Richard iii" in the book - found five pages of
Richards but not one ref to Our Richard.



Then I went to the Table of Contents - turns out the book covers the period
from the accession of Henry III in 1216 to the deposition of Richard II in
1399. No 15th. century at all!



Is it fair to say that the book title misrepresents its subject matter?



Another thing - it looks like there a detailed genealogy and a couple of
good maps of Plantagenet Britain (that's how it's labeled) and Plantagenet
Aquitaine

, but the print is so small it's impossible to read the names of the towns.



I wonder if I should ask for a refund?



I thought this was the book that referenced Bridget possibly having an
illegitimate child?? Now I know what one does when one ass/u/me's something.
<smiling wryly>



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter





Johanne Tournier wrote:

> For kindle junkies, like myself - I checked and Jeffrey Hamilton's new
(2010) book, *The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty* is available for
kindle at a price of $18.12.
>
> The 3 readers' comments are quite laudatory.

Carol responds:

Let us know what Hamilton says about Richard. $18.12 for a Kindle book is
quite expensive, and generalist books tend to present a traditional or
modified traditional view of Richard. I'm also curious as to whether
Hamilton has anything good to say about King John.

Carol

P.S. I belatedly responded to your offlist messages--didn't see them till
today!

Ah, so she could have been called 'of Eltham' for her mother. I see. It does sound as though she was probably Bridget's child.
Marie


--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> > Katy, does Sharon Penman give a source for Agnes of Eltham? I'm wondering why she was called 'of Eltham'. Was it because she was raised there, or could Bridget have been removed to Eltham Palace to give birth? Or could the mother have been someone else entirely?
> > Marie
>
>
> Naturally, I don't recall where I read that Bridget was mentally deficient.
>
> However, I consulted the sometimes-accurate Wikipedia on Bridget of Eltham. It says she was born at Eltham, London and was baptized by Edward Story, Bishop of Chichester. Age 7 she was entrusted to Dartford Priory, Kent and remained there the rest of her life.
>
> The rather poorly-edited piece goes on that the orpah and ward of Dartford Piory, Agnes of Eltham, may have been Bridget's illegitimate daughter. Then it says "She maintained correspondence throughout her life with her sister the queen, who also paid for her minor expenses as well as the minor expenses of Agnes." "She" obviously being Bridget, though the subject of the previous sentence was Agnes. If Bridget corresponded with her sister Elizabeth, she was literate, thus couldn't have been profoundly retarded.
>
> There is a separate entry on Agnes of Eltham
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_Eltham
>
> which says she married Adam Langstroth, member of a landed Yorkshire family, "with a considerable dowry." She gave birth to a son, Christopher, in 1530 and she died in 1532, aged 32. Her death two years after the birth of one child, at what is usually a healthy age, suggests to me that she died in childbirth or of a complication of pregnancy, as so often happened.
>
> Katy
>

That's just heart-breaking. The fate of Owain Glyndwr's Mortimer grandchildren appears to have been similar. Taken to the Tower with their mother.... We know the mother and daughters died soon afterwards, but the fate of the boy (Lionel I think his name was) remains a mystery. Why is Richard III singled out for the disappearances of Edward V and his brother?
Marie

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen and others
> Llewelyn the Last's daughter, Gwenllian, the last (original) Princess of Wales, was placed in a nunnery to prevent her marrying and having children. It is a very sad story. See the website below.
> http://www.britainexpress.com/wales/history/last-princess.htm
> Possibly the same situation applied to Bridget.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > >
> > >
> > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>

It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
>
> Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
>
> Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
>
> At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
>
> Carol
>

>
> I see no reason to assume that Bridget was mentally deficient. I think her banishment to a nunnery had more to do with Henry's punishing her mother and/or being a tightwad. It seems too much of a coincidence for Bridget to enter a convent (for her education though she did later become a nun) in the same year as her mother was sent to Bermondsey unless the two were connected.
>
> Carol
>


I'd agree that there is no reason at all to suppose that Bridget was mentally defective.
But did she enter the convent in the same year that her mother "retired" to Bermondsey? What is the earliest reference to her being there? Nancy Bilyeau's blog, which someone else has posted the link to (here it is again http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html) says that the first we here of it is in 1490.
By 1490 she would have been 9 years old, which would make her being sent off to "convent school" that much more normal looking. Goodness, even the nuns who taught me did their best to recruit for the Order, or failing that to send you off to Catholic teacher training college and invite you back to teach in the school.
Marie

It is my understanding that the 'of (somewhere)...' description related to a birthplace and unless one's child was born in the same place, it didn't transfer as with today's surnames.  Eltham was a relatively busy place, what with a royal residence and all its servants and household etc, therefore one might expect a number of people to have 'of Eltham' as an identifier.

It was also quite customary for noble families to dedicate a child from birth to a particular convent or religious foundation and perhaps Bridget was so designated. The fact that she was sent to a convent at seven might be linked to changes in education which usually happened around that age, for example boys were often taken away from their female nurses and 'given' to male tutors around that age.  Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called?  Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>


 
It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
>
> Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
>
> Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
>
> At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
>
> Carol
>

I see the problem. But just worth bearing in mind:-
1) The word "Princess" had only just entered the English language and was still not often used. "The Lady Brygit" is fine for a king's legitimate daughter.
2) The deal with Elizabeth Woodville whereby she agreed to let her daughters out of sanctuary was not finalised until the month AFTER these accounts finish, so if Bridget was with Elizabeth Woodville when she went into sanctuary she should have been there throughout the period of the accounts.
I'll try and find out more about the source, and whether the entry in question indicates whether it was written in the reign of Edward V or Richard III.
Marie

Carol wrote:
>
> I ran across the same passage about Bridget's illness on the Richard III Society American branch site, which states:
>
> "In the Wardrobe Accounts of the reign of Richard the Third, between the 9th of April, 1483, and the 2nd of February, 1484, the following entry occurs relating to her: 'To the Lady Brygit, one of the daughters of K. Edward IIIIth., being sick in the said Wardrobe for to have for her use at that time two long pillows of fustian, stuffed with down, and two pillow beres of Holland cloth unto them."
>
> Since the accounts begin while Richard is still Protector (and has not yet arrived in London) and extend to early February 1484, nearly seven months into his reign, it's hard to say what the situation was. The source I quoted suggests that the incident occurred before Elizabeth Woodville went into sanctuary, but I don't think so because it refers to Bridget as "the Lady Brygit" rather than "the Princess Brygit." On the other hand, would she have been referred to as "Lady" after she and her brothers and sisters had been declared bastards? Her brother Edward (or John of Gloucester) was referred to in the Wardrobe accounts as "the Lord Bastard.")
>
> If only these records had individual dates! Maybe something could be determined by chronology--is this entry before or after accounts for either coronation (Richard's or Edward's canceled one)?
>
> If Richard arranged for the pillows and so forth to be sent to Bridget, it's a sign of his consideration for his nieces. But when was she sent to the Wardrobe and by whom, and was she there the whole time that Elizabeth was in sanctuary? Surely, she would have been returned to her mother as soon as she was well.
>
> Carol
>

Ideas in the 15th century were different, but Bedlam had not yet become the awful place we know of from later accounts. It started off as a general hospital and the first mental patients were members of wealthy families who presumably chose it because they thought highly of the standard of care. In the late 15th century the majority of the patients were still physically rather than mentally ill, and the hospital received many bequests from wealthy Londoners.
Also, as we have all seen, people who were not terribly bright but evidently capable of basic understanding of what they were doing were often found marriage partners. I heard a really interesting programme on the radio recently about this same practice amongst the Indian community in Britain today; the motve is, apparently, to ensure that the son or daughter has someone to care for them after the parents are dead. Sometimes it works out very well, and sometimes very badly, but the motives seem to be caring.
But there seems no reason, anyway, to suppose that Bridget was not intelligent.
Marie



--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Sending a mentally challenged child to an asylum, Monastery or nunnery, sadly has only stopped in recent memory, think of Bedlum where the patients were viewed by paying spectators
> Only recently have our views on mental illness changed and only in the west Many other countries still treat mental illness similar to the 12th century
> Remember also that a female at this time was certainly not a free woman but a commodity to trade.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 10, 2012, at 3:42 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Ah yes! Downs Syndrome..It makes you wonder doesnt it?..How sad they felt the need to send little Bridget away from home...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Elizabeth Woodville was 43, and the likelihood of Down's increases from
> > > the age of 35.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > On 10/11/2012 19:44, EileenB wrote:
> > > > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >> I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > > >>
> > > >> Katy
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > Christine Headley
> > > Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Probably because Henry VII was a better propagandist?!


Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:44 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's just heart-breaking. The fate of Owain Glyndwr's Mortimer grandchildren appears to have been similar. Taken to the Tower with their mother.... We know the mother and daughters died soon afterwards, but the fate of the boy (Lionel I think his name was) remains a mystery. Why is Richard III singled out for the disappearances of Edward V and his brother?
> Marie
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eileen and others
> > Llewelyn the Last's daughter, Gwenllian, the last (original) Princess of Wales, was placed in a nunnery to prevent her marrying and having children. It is a very sad story. See the website below.
> > http://www.britainexpress.com/wales/history/last-princess.htm
> > Possibly the same situation applied to Bridget.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

I'm sure it is just artistic licence. These are just a group of girls who all look roughly a bit like both parents, and are of evenly decreasing size as you go down the line (or that is how I recall it). There is no attempt at real depiction of them. It reminds me of tombs where the parents are shown with all the many children they produced, all depicted as fairly big even where most actually died in infancy.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I've found some useful info on this in The Royal Funerals of the House of York at Windsor..
> Mary died just before her 15th birthday at Greenwich on May 1482. The windows are circa 1483ish so just could be that Mary is depicted in the window. Bridget would only have been around 3 years old when these windows were made.....too young to be among any of the princessess depicted...although of course we may have to allow for artistic licence.
>
> Yes indeedy...what a coincidence Bridget was entered into the convent around the same time as her mother went to live in Bermondsey Abbey!
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Ive noticed that the famous Royal window in Canterbury Cathedral only shows 5 daughters although there was six. A seventh daughter died as a baby. No Bridget?
> > > Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Mary, the second daughter, died at fourteen. That would leave Elizabeth, Cecily, Catherine, Anne, and Bridget (not counting Margaret, who died a a baby.
> >
> > I think it's important that Richard, who would have seen little Bridget when Elizabeth Woodville came out of sanctuary, made no special provisions for her, instead including her in his promise to find suitable husbands for all his nieces when they reached marriageable age.
> >
> > I see no reason to assume that Bridget was mentally deficient. I think her banishment to a nunnery had more to do with Henry's punishing her mother and/or being a tightwad. It seems too much of a coincidence for Bridget to enter a convent (for her education though she did later become a nun) in the same year as her mother was sent to Bermondsey unless the two were connected.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

>
> It was also quite customary for noble families to dedicate a child from birth to a particular convent or religious foundation and perhaps Bridget was so designated.

This was an early practice. They were known as "oblates". But it was no longer possible to do this by the 15th century.
Marie


The fact that she was sent to a convent at seven might be linked to changes in education which usually happened around that age, for example boys were often taken away from their female nurses and 'given' to male tutors around that age.  Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called?

Almost certainly down to the influence of her grandmother and godmother, Cecily. St Bridget of Sweden had founded the religious order of Sion, and the English house, Syon Priory near Kew to the west of London, was very much patronised by Cecily. I think she also left a copy of The Revelations of St Bridget in her will.
It was just becoming a popular girl's name, probably as the devotion to St Bridget of Sweden spread.
Marie


 Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>
>
>  
> It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
> 1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
> 2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
> Marie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
> >
> > Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> > http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
> >
> > Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
> >
> > At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Johanne,

I know that Kindle will happily issue a refund if a reader isn't happy with an ebook.

I've often found that, when a Kindle book is expensive, it's a university imprint so you're paying the school as well as the author.

~Wednesday

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol!
>
> HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
> I did a quick search for "Richard iii" in the book - found five pages of
> Richards but not one ref to Our Richard.
>>
> Then I went to the Table of Contents - turns out the book covers the period
> from the accession of Henry III in 1216 to the deposition of Richard II in
> 1399. No 15th. century at all!
>
> Is it fair to say that the book title misrepresents its subject matter?
>>
> Another thing - it looks like there a detailed genealogy and a couple of
> good maps of Plantagenet Britain (that's how it's labeled) and Plantagenet
> Aquitaine but the print is so small it's impossible to read the names of the towns.
>
> I wonder if I should ask for a refund?
>
> I thought this was the book that referenced Bridget possibly having an
> illegitimate child?? Now I know what one does when one ass/u/me's something.
> <smiling wryly>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Yes indeedy...what a coincidence Bridget was entered into the convent around the same time as her mother went to live in Bermondsey Abbey!
>
> Eileen
>

I'm not wedded to the idea that Bridget was mentally challenged -- she corresponded with her sister, sources say, though of course that could have been along the line of "Dear Bessie, thank you for the sweetmeats. I liked them. Love, Bridget" -- but perhaps at age seven she still needed more looking after than usual for a child that age, and she couldn't go with her mother into Bermondsey Abbey.

Katy

I think of Warwick's "social castration" and his great-nephew, Henry Pole the Younger (last seen in 1542).

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:44 PM
Subject: DDisappeared Royal Children: Was Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter



That's just heart-breaking. The fate of Owain Glyndwr's Mortimer grandchildren appears to have been similar. Taken to the Tower with their mother.... We know the mother and daughters died soon afterwards, but the fate of the boy (Lionel I think his name was) remains a mystery. Why is Richard III singled out for the disappearances of Edward V and his brother?
Marie

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen and others
> Llewelyn the Last's daughter, Gwenllian, the last (original) Princess of Wales, was placed in a nunnery to prevent her marrying and having children. It is a very sad story. See the website below.
> http://www.britainexpress.com/wales/history/last-princess.htm
> Possibly the same situation applied to Bridget.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > >
> > >
> > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol:
>
> Why are so many people assuming that Bridget was mentally challenged? No one has posted any evidence to that effect. All we have is speculation as to why she was placed in the convent, and if we look at the timing, it must be connected with her mother's forced retirement to Bermondsey Abbey.
>


I brought the subject up, I think, by saying I thought I had read that so far. Other people are merely discussing the possibility and looking for evidence one way or the other. I don't think we're assuming she was mentally challenged.

So far, the mentions of her corresponding with her sister the queen, and being left rather learned books as inheritance, indicates she had at least normal intelligence.

Katy

I think Richard is probably singled out because Henry's smear campaign had a wonderful boost from that writer from Stratford.

More recently, it might be because the Yeoman Warders (whom I just learned were created by Henry VII because he felt he needed a personal bodyguard--can't imagine why that might be) shout out a reference to the story at the beginning of every tour in the Tower.

It may be that what Richard really needs is a good public relations agent.

~Wednesday


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> That's just heart-breaking. The fate of Owain Glyndwr's Mortimer grandchildren appears to have been similar. Taken to the Tower with their mother.... We know the mother and daughters died soon afterwards, but the fate of the boy (Lionel I think his name was) remains a mystery. Why is Richard III singled out for the disappearances of Edward V and his brother?
> Marie

If this had been the case here would it still have stood once Bridget had been illigitimacised....bingo...a new word in the English language....Eileen




--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > It was also quite customary for noble families to dedicate a child from birth to a particular convent or religious foundation and perhaps Bridget was so designated.
>
> This was an early practice. They were known as "oblates". But it was no longer possible to do this by the 15th century.
> Marie
>
>
> The fact that she was sent to a convent at seven might be linked to changes in education which usually happened around that age, for example boys were often taken away from their female nurses and 'given' to male tutors around that age.  Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called?
>
> Almost certainly down to the influence of her grandmother and godmother, Cecily. St Bridget of Sweden had founded the religious order of Sion, and the English house, Syon Priory near Kew to the west of London, was very much patronised by Cecily. I think she also left a copy of The Revelations of St Bridget in her will.
> It was just becoming a popular girl's name, probably as the devotion to St Bridget of Sweden spread.
> Marie
>
>
>  Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >  
> > It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
> > 1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
> > 2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
> > >
> > > Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> > > http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
> > >
> > > Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
> > >
> > > At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Johanne Tournier wrote:
<snip>
> I did a quick search for "Richard iii" in the book - found five pages of Richards but not one ref to Our Richard.
>
> Then I went to the Table of Contents - turns out the book covers the period from the accession of Henry III in 1216 to the deposition of Richard II in 1399. No 15th. century at all!

> Is it fair to say that the book title misrepresents its subject matter? <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree that it's misleading (I made a similar mistake with a book called "The Plantagenet Chronicles," but I can see the reasoning behind it. From the usurpation of Henry IV to the usurpation of Henry VII, England alternated between Lancastrian and Yorkist kings. It seems that Hamilton is using "Plantagenet" to refer to the group otherwise known as the Angevin kings. To my knowledge, none of the Yorkist or Lancastrian kings actually used the surname Plantagenet (though, IIRC, Richard Duke of York did so to emphasize his royal blood).

Carol

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

> I brought the subject up, I think, by saying I thought I had read that so far.


Um...I meant to type "somewhere" not "so far."


Katy

Seems the thin edge of the wedge to me....your sisters get to party and you live in a convent....Of course....when you consider what happened to her oldest sister maybe it wasnt so bad....Eileen

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes indeedy...what a coincidence Bridget was entered into the convent around the same time as her mother went to live in Bermondsey Abbey!
> >
> > Eileen
> >
>
> I'm not wedded to the idea that Bridget was mentally challenged -- she corresponded with her sister, sources say, though of course that could have been along the line of "Dear Bessie, thank you for the sweetmeats. I liked them. Love, Bridget" -- but perhaps at age seven she still needed more looking after than usual for a child that age, and she couldn't go with her mother into Bermondsey Abbey.
>
> Katy
>

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
> 1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
> 2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!

Carol adds:

Could there be a connection between this John Roper and Sir Thomas More's son-in-law, William Roper? Roper isn't a common name.

Carol

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> If this had been the case here would it still have stood once Bridget had been illigitimacised....bingo...a new word in the English language....Eileen

Sorry, would what have still stood?
Marie


>
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It was also quite customary for noble families to dedicate a child from birth to a particular convent or religious foundation and perhaps Bridget was so designated.
> >
> > This was an early practice. They were known as "oblates". But it was no longer possible to do this by the 15th century.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > The fact that she was sent to a convent at seven might be linked to changes in education which usually happened around that age, for example boys were often taken away from their female nurses and 'given' to male tutors around that age.  Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called?
> >
> > Almost certainly down to the influence of her grandmother and godmother, Cecily. St Bridget of Sweden had founded the religious order of Sion, and the English house, Syon Priory near Kew to the west of London, was very much patronised by Cecily. I think she also left a copy of The Revelations of St Bridget in her will.
> > It was just becoming a popular girl's name, probably as the devotion to St Bridget of Sweden spread.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >  Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
> > > 1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
> > > 2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
> > > >
> > > > Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> > > > http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
> > > >
> > > > Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes, I've found that many texts that I've wanted to get for my seminary
studies (by noted scholars like John J. Collins) are priced way above the
usual kindle prices. This one is not too bad, price-wise. But - it irks me
that Hamiltn does deal with the 15th. c. and with Richard as the last
Plantagenet monarch.



Do you (or anyone else) know of an excellect general history of the War of
the Roses that might be a good complement this book, if I decide to keep it?



I think someone on this list said that you've got 30 days to ask for a
refund on a kindle book, and of course, they snatch it off your device, but
that's fair enough. I'll read a bit of it and see if it seems to be worth
hanging onto despite the deficiencies.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne







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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter





Hi, Johanne,

I know that Kindle will happily issue a refund if a reader isn't happy with
an ebook.

I've often found that, when a Kindle book is expensive, it's a university
imprint so you're paying the school as well as the author.

~Wednesday

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol!
>
> HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
> I did a quick search for "Richard iii" in the book - found five pages of
> Richards but not one ref to Our Richard.
>>
> Then I went to the Table of Contents - turns out the book covers the
period
> from the accession of Henry III in 1216 to the deposition of Richard II in
> 1399. No 15th. century at all!
>
> Is it fair to say that the book title misrepresents its subject matter?
>>
> Another thing - it looks like there a detailed genealogy and a couple of
> good maps of Plantagenet Britain (that's how it's labeled) and Plantagenet
> Aquitaine but the print is so small it's impossible to read the names of
the towns.
>
> I wonder if I should ask for a refund?
>
> I thought this was the book that referenced Bridget possibly having an
> illegitimate child?? Now I know what one does when one ass/u/me's
something.
> <smiling wryly>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>

Marie wrote:
> I'd agree that there is no reason at all to suppose that Bridget was mentally defective.
> But did she enter the convent in the same year that her mother "retired" to Bermondsey? What is the earliest reference to her being there? Nancy Bilyeau's blog, which someone else has posted the link to (here it is again http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html) says that the first we here of it is in 1490.
> By 1490 she would have been 9 years old, which would make her being sent off to "convent school" that much more normal looking. <snip>

Carol responds:

Yes, Katy and I both posted a link to this blog. (I noted that it presents a somewhat traditionalist view of Richard and a sympathetic one of Elizabeth Woodville--those views may explain why the novelist blogger thinks there's no reason to suspect Elizabeth of treason against Henry, a viewpoint that I disagree with.)

She doesn't her source for the year 1490; Wikipedia says that she was sent to the convent some time between 1486 and 1492, when she attended her mother's funeral (and became an orphan).

By the way, Bridget had a November birthday, so you're right that she would have been nine, not ten as Bilyeau says, for most of 1490. That would also mean that she was six, not seven, for most of 1487, the year that Sharon Kay Penman gives as quoted in Katy's original post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/18723

Does anyone know Penman's source for the year 1487 (which still seems to me the most likely date)?

Carol

Marie.....the agreement/arrangment...or whatever it would have been....made between the Royal parents and the Convent that one of the royal daughters should be sent there...? I presume this was an arrangement that would have suited the Covent in terms of a financial
advantage or kudos for having a royal child raised and educated by them...and maybe taking the veil within that order when old enough...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > If this had been the case here would it still have stood once Bridget had been illigitimacised....bingo...a new word in the English language....Eileen
>
> Sorry, would what have still stood?
> Marie
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It was also quite customary for noble families to dedicate a child from birth to a particular convent or religious foundation and perhaps Bridget was so designated.
> > >
> > > This was an early practice. They were known as "oblates". But it was no longer possible to do this by the 15th century.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact that she was sent to a convent at seven might be linked to changes in education which usually happened around that age, for example boys were often taken away from their female nurses and 'given' to male tutors around that age.  Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called?
> > >
> > > Almost certainly down to the influence of her grandmother and godmother, Cecily. St Bridget of Sweden had founded the religious order of Sion, and the English house, Syon Priory near Kew to the west of London, was very much patronised by Cecily. I think she also left a copy of The Revelations of St Bridget in her will.
> > > It was just becoming a popular girl's name, probably as the devotion to St Bridget of Sweden spread.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >  Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
> > > > 1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
> > > > 2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> > > > > http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie.....the agreement/arrangment...or whatever it would have been....made between the Royal parents and the Convent that one of the royal daughters should be sent there...? I presume this was an arrangement that would have suited the Covent in terms of a financial
advantage or kudos for having a royal child raised and educated by them...and maybe taking the veil within that order when old enough...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > If this had been the case here would it still have stood once Bridget had been illigitimacised....bingo...a new word in the English language....Eileen
>
> Sorry, would what have still stood?
> Marie
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It was also quite customary for noble families to dedicate a child from birth to a particular convent or religious foundation and perhaps Bridget was so designated.
> > >
> > > This was an early practice. They were known as "oblates". But it was no longer possible to do this by the 15th century.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > The fact that she was sent to a convent at seven might be linked to changes in education which usually happened around that age, for example boys were often taken away from their female nurses and 'given' to male tutors around that age.  Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called?
> > >
> > > Almost certainly down to the influence of her grandmother and godmother, Cecily. St Bridget of Sweden had founded the religious order of Sion, and the English house, Syon Priory near Kew to the west of London, was very much patronised by Cecily. I think she also left a copy of The Revelations of St Bridget in her will.
> > > It was just becoming a popular girl's name, probably as the devotion to St Bridget of Sweden spread.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >  Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
> > > > 1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
> > > > 2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> > > > > http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Please see below for the important negative word that I inadvertently
omitted.



Johanne

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne
Tournier
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:23 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter



Yes, I've found that many texts that I've wanted to get for my seminary
studies (by noted scholars like John J. Collins) are priced way above the
usual kindle prices. This one is not too bad, price-wise. But - it irks me
that Hamiltn does NOT deal with the 15th. c. and with Richard as the last
Plantagenet monarch.



<snip>

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
wednesday_mc
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:42 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

Hi, Johanne,

I know that Kindle will happily issue a refund if a reader isn't happy with
an ebook.

I've often found that, when a Kindle book is expensive, it's a university
imprint so you're paying the school as well as the author.

~Wednesday

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol!
>
> HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
> I did a quick search for "Richard iii" in the book - found five pages of
> Richards but not one ref to Our Richard.
>>
> Then I went to the Table of Contents - turns out the book covers the
period
> from the accession of Henry III in 1216 to the deposition of Richard II in
> 1399. No 15th. century at all!
>
> Is it fair to say that the book title misrepresents its subject matter?
>>
> Another thing - it looks like there a detailed genealogy and a couple of
> good maps of Plantagenet Britain (that's how it's labeled) and Plantagenet
> Aquitaine but the print is so small it's impossible to read the names of
the towns.
>
> I wonder if I should ask for a refund?
>
> I thought this was the book that referenced Bridget possibly having an
> illegitimate child?? Now I know what one does when one ass/u/me's
something.
> <smiling wryly>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>

Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> <snip> Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called? Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.

Carol responds:

Nancy Bilyeau http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html says that she was named for Saint Bridget, a fourteenth-century Swedish saint who had personal visions of Christ and founded a religious order. If so, the suggestion that her parents intended her to become a nun makes sense. The only question would be when and under what circumstances she was sent to Dartford Priory.

Here's a link to information on Saint Bridget (aka Birgitta), who, incidentally, was a member of the same clan as the royal family of Sweden: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=264 However, there's another Saint Bridget (Brigid of Ireland), who may be a better candidate for namesake: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=453

Evidently, there are at least six saints with a name close to Bridget after whom she could have been named http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php?lst=B. I checked their feast days http://www.catholic.org/saints/f_day/nov.php but none corresponds with Bridget's birthday, so that doesn't help. And she's not named for her godmother, none other than Margaret Beaufort. Could Margaret have had a hand in this?

By the way, by pure coincidence, today is Bridget's birthday.

Carol

Hi Eileen,

I very sincerely doubt that any such arrangement had been made before Edward IV's children were bastardised. SBridget would have been sent to a convent to be educated when she reached a suitable age, and I see no reason to suppose her parents would have had to "put her name down" when she was a baby - what convent would have turned down a royal princess? The 'maybe taking the veil' as well, we should remember could only properly have been maybe in the sense of 'if she agrees', and I suspect that would have been an unspoken hope on both sides rather than part of a formal contract.

Bridget may well have CHOSEN to become a nun after years of conditioning - there is a certain romance to the idea of forsaking the world, being the bride of Christ and being a holy virgin. Not sure how well it works out in practice, but even today it's a life that clearly suits a few individuals.

Marie




--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Marie.....the agreement/arrangment...or whatever it would have been....made between the Royal parents and the Convent that one of the royal daughters should be sent there...? I presume this was an arrangement that would have suited the Covent in terms of a financial
> advantage or kudos for having a royal child raised and educated by them...and maybe taking the veil within that order when old enough...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If this had been the case here would it still have stood once Bridget had been illigitimacised....bingo...a new word in the English language....Eileen
> >
> > Sorry, would what have still stood?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It was also quite customary for noble families to dedicate a child from birth to a particular convent or religious foundation and perhaps Bridget was so designated.
> > > >
> > > > This was an early practice. They were known as "oblates". But it was no longer possible to do this by the 15th century.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The fact that she was sent to a convent at seven might be linked to changes in education which usually happened around that age, for example boys were often taken away from their female nurses and 'given' to male tutors around that age.  Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called?
> > > >
> > > > Almost certainly down to the influence of her grandmother and godmother, Cecily. St Bridget of Sweden had founded the religious order of Sion, and the English house, Syon Priory near Kew to the west of London, was very much patronised by Cecily. I think she also left a copy of The Revelations of St Bridget in her will.
> > > > It was just becoming a popular girl's name, probably as the devotion to St Bridget of Sweden spread.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
> > > > > 1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
> > > > > 2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> > > > > > http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

 
<Katy said
 
<There is a separate entry on Agnes of Eltham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_Eltham

<which says she married Adam Langstroth, member of a landed Yorkshire family, "with a considerable dowry." She gave birth to a <son, Christopher, in 1530 and she died in 1532, aged 32.
 
 
 
There's an American painter called Chris Langstroth
 
 
http://chris.langstroth.com/
 

Thanks Marie...After so many informative posts today on Bridget....lol....still not quite made my mind up....could be wrong even then... as to whether Bridget was in some way mentally deficient or just placed in the convent for some other motive but have enjoyed exploring the possibilities. Feel quite a sad life though...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Eileen,
>
> I very sincerely doubt that any such arrangement had been made before Edward IV's children were bastardised. SBridget would have been sent to a convent to be educated when she reached a suitable age, and I see no reason to suppose her parents would have had to "put her name down" when she was a baby - what convent would have turned down a royal princess? The 'maybe taking the veil' as well, we should remember could only properly have been maybe in the sense of 'if she agrees', and I suspect that would have been an unspoken hope on both sides rather than part of a formal contract.
>
> Bridget may well have CHOSEN to become a nun after years of conditioning - there is a certain romance to the idea of forsaking the world, being the bride of Christ and being a holy virgin. Not sure how well it works out in practice, but even today it's a life that clearly suits a few individuals.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie.....the agreement/arrangment...or whatever it would have been....made between the Royal parents and the Convent that one of the royal daughters should be sent there...? I presume this was an arrangement that would have suited the Covent in terms of a financial
> > advantage or kudos for having a royal child raised and educated by them...and maybe taking the veil within that order when old enough...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If this had been the case here would it still have stood once Bridget had been illigitimacised....bingo...a new word in the English language....Eileen
> > >
> > > Sorry, would what have still stood?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was also quite customary for noble families to dedicate a child from birth to a particular convent or religious foundation and perhaps Bridget was so designated.
> > > > >
> > > > > This was an early practice. They were known as "oblates". But it was no longer possible to do this by the 15th century.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact that she was sent to a convent at seven might be linked to changes in education which usually happened around that age, for example boys were often taken away from their female nurses and 'given' to male tutors around that age.  Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called?
> > > > >
> > > > > Almost certainly down to the influence of her grandmother and godmother, Cecily. St Bridget of Sweden had founded the religious order of Sion, and the English house, Syon Priory near Kew to the west of London, was very much patronised by Cecily. I think she also left a copy of The Revelations of St Bridget in her will.
> > > > > It was just becoming a popular girl's name, probably as the devotion to St Bridget of Sweden spread.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > It sounds from your link as though John Roper of Eltham should be looked into. If there are extant sources (his will, perhaps?) that show he had a daughter Agnes at Dartford Priory, then surely either:-
> > > > > > 1) The identification of Agnes as Princess Bridget's daughter is wrong; or
> > > > > > 2) Roper was the father and Bridget the mother!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was after Bosworth. When exactly did Elizabeth Woodville retire to Bermondsey Abbey? Perhaps the Weasle was having cash flow problems at the time. Also, I hope the poor little girl would have been schooled by the nuns for a period of time. Surely they wouldn't allow a 7 year old to take holy orders, regardless of her degree of mental competence. Would they?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since Elizabeth Woodville was "retired" to Bermondsey Abbey in 1487, it seems highly likely that Bridget was sent to a different abbey at the same time, probably earlier than her mother had originally intended if she and Edward had planned all along for Bridget to become a nun. It's possible that Henry VII was getting the little girl out of the way by sending her to the abbey (where he wouldn't need to maintain her or worry about finding her a suitable husband when the time came.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's an interesting link to a discussion of Bridget which addresses the question of Bridget's mental competence and her possible illegitimate daughter (admittedly the author is a novelist not a historian and takes a rather traditional view of Richard and an overly sympathetic view of Elizabeth Woodville):
> > > > > > > http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-woman.html Still, preconceptions aside, it presents some material that's new to me, at least.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oddly, or not so oddly, Wikipedia seems to take the illegitimate daughter for granted. I had never heard of her until this thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At any rate, it does seem that poor Bridget had a less than ideal life.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > <snip> Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she was so called? Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be dedicated to the religious life.

[regrettably omitting Carol's contribution of interesting info on the Saints Brigid]


That made me wonder whence came the name Ursula, given to Richard's short-lived younger sister, Cecily Neville's last child. That's certainly an unusual, if not unique, name in the nobility.

There were several saints called Ursula:

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=325

but I think the most likely explanation for the name is that she was born on October 21, St Ursula's Day. I have no idea when she was born, not even the year, but that seems to me the more likely explanation than that she was named specifically to honor one of the virgin martyrs.

Katy

Actually he may be Canadian - my apologies to all concerned!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012, 18:31
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

 
 
<Katy said
 
<There is a separate entry on Agnes of Eltham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_Eltham

<which says she married Adam Langstroth, member of a landed Yorkshire family, "with a considerable dowry." She gave birth to a <son, Christopher, in 1530 and she died in 1532, aged 32.
 
 
 
There's an American painter called Chris Langstroth
 
 
http://chris.langstroth.com/
 

The oldest sister became Queen of England. Not sure how that can be
interpreted as a bad thing.

Here's another blog about Bridget:

http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/a-royal-christening-bridget-of-y
ork-november-11-1480/

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:59:40 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter






Seems the thin edge of the wedge to me....your sisters get to party and you
live in a convent....Of course....when you consider what happened to her
oldest sister maybe it wasnt so bad....Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes indeedy...what a coincidence Bridget was entered into the convent around
the same time as her mother went to live in Bermondsey Abbey!
> >
> > Eileen
> >
>
> I'm not wedded to the idea that Bridget was mentally challenged -- she
corresponded with her sister, sources say, though of course that could have been
along the line of "Dear Bessie, thank you for the sweetmeats. I liked them.
Love, Bridget" -- but perhaps at age seven she still needed more looking after
than usual for a child that age, and she couldn't go with her mother into
Bermondsey Abbey.
>
> Katy
>

David Grummit's just written A Short History of the Wars of the Roses. There
are a couple of slips and typos (Edward Prince of Wales is twice called
'Henry') and he does hold to the traditional view of Richard, but you can
always skip those few pages! Seriously, it's a good, concise look at the
Wars if you don't want to get too deeply into it. Michael Hicks has two
books called The Wars of the Roses, both are extremely good. Again, he holds
to the traditional view of Richard. I don't think it's a bad thing to read
that view, especially if it's carefully and credibly researched and written.
I think it's a good idea to get an understanding of other perspectives.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:22:50 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter






Yes, I've found that many texts that I've wanted to get for my seminary
studies (by noted scholars like John J. Collins) are priced way above the
usual kindle prices. This one is not too bad, price-wise. But - it irks me
that Hamiltn does deal with the 15th. c. and with Richard as the last
Plantagenet monarch.

Do you (or anyone else) know of an excellect general history of the War of
the Roses that might be a good complement this book, if I decide to keep it?

I think someone on this list said that you've got 30 days to ask for a
refund on a kindle book, and of course, they snatch it off your device, but
that's fair enough. I'll read a bit of it and see if it seems to be worth
hanging onto despite the deficiencies.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
wednesday_mc
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:42 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

Hi, Johanne,

I know that Kindle will happily issue a refund if a reader isn't happy with
an ebook.

I've often found that, when a Kindle book is expensive, it's a university
imprint so you're paying the school as well as the author.

~Wednesday

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol!
>
> HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
> I did a quick search for "Richard iii" in the book - found five pages of
> Richards but not one ref to Our Richard.
>>
> Then I went to the Table of Contents - turns out the book covers the
period
> from the accession of Henry III in 1216 to the deposition of Richard II in
> 1399. No 15th. century at all!
>
> Is it fair to say that the book title misrepresents its subject matter?
>>
> Another thing - it looks like there a detailed genealogy and a couple of
> good maps of Plantagenet Britain (that's how it's labeled) and Plantagenet
> Aquitaine but the print is so small it's impossible to read the names of
the towns.
>
> I wonder if I should ask for a refund?
>
> I thought this was the book that referenced Bridget possibly having an
> illegitimate child?? Now I know what one does when one ass/u/me's
something.
> <smiling wryly>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>

My understanding (and it may well be wrong) is that Ursula was born around
the middle of 1455.

Karen

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:19:50 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> > <snip> Her name, Bridget, was unusual in the royal family - any idea why she
was so called? Perhaps that, too, was related to a decision that she would be
dedicated to the religious life.

[regrettably omitting Carol's contribution of interesting info on the Saints
Brigid]

That made me wonder whence came the name Ursula, given to Richard's
short-lived younger sister, Cecily Neville's last child. That's certainly
an unusual, if not unique, name in the nobility.

There were several saints called Ursula:

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=325

but I think the most likely explanation for the name is that she was born on
October 21, St Ursula's Day. I have no idea when she was born, not even
the year, but that seems to me the more likely explanation than that she was
named specifically to honor one of the virgin martyrs.

Katy

Thanks for the recommendations, Karen!



The main thing that bothers me about most of the "traditionalist" views is
that I feel they have basically pre-judged Richard; thus they often seem to
parrot the views of earlier writers, and therefore their reasoning is not
all that persuasive. On the other hand, it's good to know what "the other
side" is saying, and once in a while you do get a bit of useful information.
That's what looking at a chapter or two of David Baldwin's book brought to
my mind.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter





David Grummit's just written A Short History of the Wars of the Roses. There
are a couple of slips and typos (Edward Prince of Wales is twice called
'Henry') and he does hold to the traditional view of Richard, but you can
always skip those few pages! Seriously, it's a good, concise look at the
Wars if you don't want to get too deeply into it. Michael Hicks has two
books called The Wars of the Roses, both are extremely good. Again, he holds
to the traditional view of Richard. I don't think it's a bad thing to read
that view, especially if it's carefully and credibly researched and written.
I think it's a good idea to get an understanding of other perspectives.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:22:50 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Yes, I've found that many texts that I've wanted to get for my seminary
studies (by noted scholars like John J. Collins) are priced way above the
usual kindle prices. This one is not too bad, price-wise. But - it irks me
that Hamiltn does deal with the 15th. c. and with Richard as the last
Plantagenet monarch.

Do you (or anyone else) know of an excellect general history of the War of
the Roses that might be a good complement this book, if I decide to keep it?

I think someone on this list said that you've got 30 days to ask for a
refund on a kindle book, and of course, they snatch it off your device, but
that's fair enough. I'll read a bit of it and see if it seems to be worth
hanging onto despite the deficiencies.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
wednesday_mc
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:42 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

Hi, Johanne,

I know that Kindle will happily issue a refund if a reader isn't happy with
an ebook.

I've often found that, when a Kindle book is expensive, it's a university
imprint so you're paying the school as well as the author.

~Wednesday

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol!
>
> HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>>
> I did a quick search for "Richard iii" in the book - found five pages of
> Richards but not one ref to Our Richard.
>>
> Then I went to the Table of Contents - turns out the book covers the
period
> from the accession of Henry III in 1216 to the deposition of Richard II in
> 1399. No 15th. century at all!
>
> Is it fair to say that the book title misrepresents its subject matter?
>>
> Another thing - it looks like there a detailed genealogy and a couple of
> good maps of Plantagenet Britain (that's how it's labeled) and Plantagenet
> Aquitaine but the print is so small it's impossible to read the names of
the towns.
>
> I wonder if I should ask for a refund?
>
> I thought this was the book that referenced Bridget possibly having an
> illegitimate child?? Now I know what one does when one ass/u/me's
something.
> <smiling wryly>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>

Well surely it depends who the King of England is? 

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012, 21:46
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

 
The oldest sister became Queen of England. Not sure how that can be
interpreted as a bad thing.

Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across
anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly,
though. Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death
of Arthur and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to
have more children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a
friendly, if not affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people
here who loathe him, but I'm not sure how confidently we can project that
onto his wife. I wonder if she'd be surprised to find people expressing
sorrow for her.

Karen

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:26:56 +0000 (GMT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter






Well surely it depends who the King of England is?

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 11 November 2012, 21:46
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter


The oldest sister became Queen of England. Not sure how that can be
interpreted as a bad thing.

Hi, Karen -



I think it was Tey who referred to Henry as "unuxorious," which is a rather
understated pejorative, but honestly I don't know enough about Henry's life
after Bosworth to be able to make a firm judgment on his warmth at the
personal level.

However, I think some scorn heaped at him personally is justified and
understandable on the part of Ricardians; he not only bears the burden of
Bosworth, he bears the burden of encouraging the demonization and
delegitimation of Richard. Of course, Henry's relationship with Elizabeth of
York is another matter. He seems from what little I know to have been a cold
fish, but then if he wasn't actually an abuser or a philanderer, like some
kings I could mention, perhaps he was actually better than average in the
realm of relations with his queen. However, from the discussion about his
relations with Elizabeth Woodville, one can gather safely I think, that
either or both of them were not to be trusted. And it seems to me that
Richard's olive branches toward Elizabeth Woodville were more genuine than
Henry's; I would suggest that the mutual dealings of Richard and Henry with
the Queen Dowager are illuminating of their personal qualities. On the other
hand, I also recall reading that Henry was devastated upon the death of his
Queen. And he never remarried, did he?



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 7:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter





Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across
anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly,
though. Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death
of Arthur and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to
have more children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a
friendly, if not affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people
here who loathe him, but I'm not sure how confidently we can project that
onto his wife. I wonder if she'd be surprised to find people expressing
sorrow for her.

Karen

Johanne

I understand that there's a level of personal scorn heaped on Henry VII, and
though I don't share those strong feelings, I can understand why. It's the
projection of those feelings onto people who may very well not have shared
them that I truly don't understand. As for most things to do Richard III &
Henry VII's reigns (and further back) there's not a great deal to go on
regarding personal relationships. What little there is suggests that Henry &
Elizabeth's relationship wasn't one of horror, as (I think) a lot of people
would dearly like to believe. Objectivity and rationality (so far as
anyone's capable) are very important when looking at history, or at least
they are to me. Those who can't, or don't want to be objective are
shortchanging themselves in my view. But that's very much their choice and
their business. Trying to understand Henry VII (and others) from as many
angles as possible is every bit as important as trying to understand
Richard. Throwing one into the 'villain' box and the other into the 'hero'
box, without recognising the shades of grey, the moral ambiguity and the
complexity of either man, isn't something I find particularly useful. Henry
and Elizabeth may have loved each other dearly for all we know, or they may
have just rubbed along together fairly well, but the idea of Elizabeth
shuddering in horror at the thought of her husband just doesn't match what
little we know of their marriage.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:53:12 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter






Hi, Karen -

I think it was Tey who referred to Henry as "unuxorious," which is a rather
understated pejorative, but honestly I don't know enough about Henry's life
after Bosworth to be able to make a firm judgment on his warmth at the
personal level.

However, I think some scorn heaped at him personally is justified and
understandable on the part of Ricardians; he not only bears the burden of
Bosworth, he bears the burden of encouraging the demonization and
delegitimation of Richard. Of course, Henry's relationship with Elizabeth of
York is another matter. He seems from what little I know to have been a cold
fish, but then if he wasn't actually an abuser or a philanderer, like some
kings I could mention, perhaps he was actually better than average in the
realm of relations with his queen. However, from the discussion about his
relations with Elizabeth Woodville, one can gather safely I think, that
either or both of them were not to be trusted. And it seems to me that
Richard's olive branches toward Elizabeth Woodville were more genuine than
Henry's; I would suggest that the mutual dealings of Richard and Henry with
the Queen Dowager are illuminating of their personal qualities. On the other
hand, I also recall reading that Henry was devastated upon the death of his
Queen. And he never remarried, did he?

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 7:52 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across
anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly,
though. Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death
of Arthur and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to
have more children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a
friendly, if not affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people
here who loathe him, but I'm not sure how confidently we can project that
onto his wife. I wonder if she'd be surprised to find people expressing
sorrow for her.

Karen

Marie...I know that the matter of Elizabeth spending out the last years of her life in Bermondsey Abbey is just a small footnote in Ricardian history...but I actually think it is of great importance. If she was sent there against her own personal wishes, and we could know this for sure, imagine the difference it would make in our understanding of what befell the two princes....We would then know for sure that one or both or them survived....as then that would make sense of Elizabeth's behaviour... and the Weasle's reasons for punishing her...why would she want to indulge in plotting that would do her own daughter no good and possible harm...?

I do agree with you that it seems likely that it was forced upon her....as she could not have gone into Bermondsey through failing health as she lived there, I think, for about 5 years...Would she have survived this long if she had not been in good health..I dont think so. Coupled with the fact that in her Will she had so little to pass on to her loved ones. Elizabeth certainly paid the price for her earlier greed and plotting...
Eileen



I think we discussed the Bermondsey business on the forum once. Personally I can't see that it is likely to have been voluntary.
> > >
> > > http://www.ashevillelist.com/history/medieval-women.htm
> > >
> > > Interestingly, I do recall a brief piece in the Ricardian many years back about little Bridget. It seems that when Elizabeth Woodville dashed into Westminster Sanctuary with her daughters in 1483 Bridget was not with them - she was in the royal residence in the city known as the Wardrobe. Shortly after his arrival Richard had extra pillows sent over for her because she wasn't well.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi, Karen -

Well, the relationships of all these people are certainly complex and
ambiguous, for the most part. I have a concept of Richard, as you know, as
at heart a reformer and idealist, and I think there is evidence for that in
many of his actions. But other than that - well, I don't know about you, but
I was raised on tales of Tudor England, and the romance there was always
tinged with horror.



As far as Henry and Elizabeth - I would just like to see further
investigation of Henry and Elizbeth's continuing relations with the Queen
Dowager and Elizabeth's siblings. I think that will likely be illustrative.
Did Elizabeth of York go along with Henry's plans? Wouldn't she have had
enough sway with him to moderate his skin-flinty instincts had she so
chosen? Or, perhaps she was a self-centered snit as well. As I said, I don't
know for sure - but I am starting to work with a theory that it was
Elizabeth who was the source of the "Richard is going to marry me" rumour.
She was a teenage girl and may well have been drawn to the most powerful man
in the room. (Very tentative hypothesis for which I have no proof at this
point, of course.)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 9:21 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter





Johanne

I understand that there's a level of personal scorn heaped on Henry VII, and
though I don't share those strong feelings, I can understand why. It's the
projection of those feelings onto people who may very well not have shared
them that I truly don't understand. As for most things to do Richard III &
Henry VII's reigns (and further back) there's not a great deal to go on
regarding personal relationships. What little there is suggests that Henry &
Elizabeth's relationship wasn't one of horror, as (I think) a lot of people
would dearly like to believe. Objectivity and rationality (so far as
anyone's capable) are very important when looking at history, or at least
they are to me. Those who can't, or don't want to be objective are
shortchanging themselves in my view. But that's very much their choice and
their business. Trying to understand Henry VII (and others) from as many
angles as possible is every bit as important as trying to understand
Richard. Throwing one into the 'villain' box and the other into the 'hero'
box, without recognising the shades of grey, the moral ambiguity and the
complexity of either man, isn't something I find particularly useful. Henry
and Elizabeth may have loved each other dearly for all we know, or they may
have just rubbed along together fairly well, but the idea of Elizabeth
shuddering in horror at the thought of her husband just doesn't match what
little we know of their marriage.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:53:12 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Hi, Karen -

I think it was Tey who referred to Henry as "unuxorious," which is a rather
understated pejorative, but honestly I don't know enough about Henry's life
after Bosworth to be able to make a firm judgment on his warmth at the
personal level.

However, I think some scorn heaped at him personally is justified and
understandable on the part of Ricardians; he not only bears the burden of
Bosworth, he bears the burden of encouraging the demonization and
delegitimation of Richard. Of course, Henry's relationship with Elizabeth of
York is another matter. He seems from what little I know to have been a cold
fish, but then if he wasn't actually an abuser or a philanderer, like some
kings I could mention, perhaps he was actually better than average in the
realm of relations with his queen. However, from the discussion about his
relations with Elizabeth Woodville, one can gather safely I think, that
either or both of them were not to be trusted. And it seems to me that
Richard's olive branches toward Elizabeth Woodville were more genuine than
Henry's; I would suggest that the mutual dealings of Richard and Henry with
the Queen Dowager are illuminating of their personal qualities. On the other
hand, I also recall reading that Henry was devastated upon the death of his
Queen. And he never remarried, did he?

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 7:52 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across
anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly,
though. Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death
of Arthur and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to
have more children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a
friendly, if not affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people
here who loathe him, but I'm not sure how confidently we can project that
onto his wife. I wonder if she'd be surprised to find people expressing
sorrow for her.

Karen

Johanne

I have no illusions, and little interest, in the Tudors. I find them all so
very tedious. Henry VII is an exception because he impacted so very much on
the people I am intrigued by and interested in. For that to work, I need my
research to be as balanced as possible.

There have been a couple of articles written about Elizabeth's queenship,
but I do agree that their shared lives, and more particularly hers, does
warrant further study.

Elizabeth of York was in a difficult position, no doubt. Either she knew
categorically that her brothers were dead or was prepared to take a huge
gamble in marrying Henry and becoming queen. If either of them survived
Richard's reign (which, sadly, I don't think they did) and challenged for
their father's crown, she would have been in the unenviable position of
either working against her brother or her husband and children. I think
Elizabeth Wydeville faced that choice as well, and (again assuming she knew
categorically that her sons were dead) made the difficult choice of doing
all she could to promote and support her daughter's opportunity to revive
the family fortunes (and by that I include her father's family).

I'll need to know more about Elizabeth Wydeville's retirement to Bermondsey
before I can comment intelligently, but I believe the idea that Henry forced
her to go isn't universally accepted. But I shall be keeping an open mind on
that for the time being.

Your tentative hypothesis sounds interesting. Do keep us posted!

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:37:54 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter






Hi, Karen -

Well, the relationships of all these people are certainly complex and
ambiguous, for the most part. I have a concept of Richard, as you know, as
at heart a reformer and idealist, and I think there is evidence for that in
many of his actions. But other than that - well, I don't know about you, but
I was raised on tales of Tudor England, and the romance there was always
tinged with horror.

As far as Henry and Elizabeth - I would just like to see further
investigation of Henry and Elizbeth's continuing relations with the Queen
Dowager and Elizabeth's siblings. I think that will likely be illustrative.
Did Elizabeth of York go along with Henry's plans? Wouldn't she have had
enough sway with him to moderate his skin-flinty instincts had she so
chosen? Or, perhaps she was a self-centered snit as well. As I said, I don't
know for sure - but I am starting to work with a theory that it was
Elizabeth who was the source of the "Richard is going to marry me" rumour.
She was a teenage girl and may well have been drawn to the most powerful man
in the room. (Very tentative hypothesis for which I have no proof at this
point, of course.)

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 9:21 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Johanne

I understand that there's a level of personal scorn heaped on Henry VII, and
though I don't share those strong feelings, I can understand why. It's the
projection of those feelings onto people who may very well not have shared
them that I truly don't understand. As for most things to do Richard III &
Henry VII's reigns (and further back) there's not a great deal to go on
regarding personal relationships. What little there is suggests that Henry &
Elizabeth's relationship wasn't one of horror, as (I think) a lot of people
would dearly like to believe. Objectivity and rationality (so far as
anyone's capable) are very important when looking at history, or at least
they are to me. Those who can't, or don't want to be objective are
shortchanging themselves in my view. But that's very much their choice and
their business. Trying to understand Henry VII (and others) from as many
angles as possible is every bit as important as trying to understand
Richard. Throwing one into the 'villain' box and the other into the 'hero'
box, without recognising the shades of grey, the moral ambiguity and the
complexity of either man, isn't something I find particularly useful. Henry
and Elizabeth may have loved each other dearly for all we know, or they may
have just rubbed along together fairly well, but the idea of Elizabeth
shuddering in horror at the thought of her husband just doesn't match what
little we know of their marriage.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:53:12 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Hi, Karen -

I think it was Tey who referred to Henry as "unuxorious," which is a rather
understated pejorative, but honestly I don't know enough about Henry's life
after Bosworth to be able to make a firm judgment on his warmth at the
personal level.

However, I think some scorn heaped at him personally is justified and
understandable on the part of Ricardians; he not only bears the burden of
Bosworth, he bears the burden of encouraging the demonization and
delegitimation of Richard. Of course, Henry's relationship with Elizabeth of
York is another matter. He seems from what little I know to have been a cold
fish, but then if he wasn't actually an abuser or a philanderer, like some
kings I could mention, perhaps he was actually better than average in the
realm of relations with his queen. However, from the discussion about his
relations with Elizabeth Woodville, one can gather safely I think, that
either or both of them were not to be trusted. And it seems to me that
Richard's olive branches toward Elizabeth Woodville were more genuine than
Henry's; I would suggest that the mutual dealings of Richard and Henry with
the Queen Dowager are illuminating of their personal qualities. On the other
hand, I also recall reading that Henry was devastated upon the death of his
Queen. And he never remarried, did he?

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 7:52 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across
anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly,
though. Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death
of Arthur and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to
have more children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a
friendly, if not affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people
here who loathe him, but I'm not sure how confidently we can project that
onto his wife. I wonder if she'd be surprised to find people expressing
sorrow for her.

Karen

Hi Eileen,

Henry's actions regarding Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset are intriguing and do raise awkward questions, as do other things that I really ought to write an article about.
To my mind, with history as with science, the most important aid to making progress is to keep a head full of questions. No matter how much you learn, there should always be more questions.
Marie




--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Marie...I know that the matter of Elizabeth spending out the last years of her life in Bermondsey Abbey is just a small footnote in Ricardian history...but I actually think it is of great importance. If she was sent there against her own personal wishes, and we could know this for sure, imagine the difference it would make in our understanding of what befell the two princes....We would then know for sure that one or both or them survived....as then that would make sense of Elizabeth's behaviour... and the Weasle's reasons for punishing her...why would she want to indulge in plotting that would do her own daughter no good and possible harm...?
>
> I do agree with you that it seems likely that it was forced upon her....as she could not have gone into Bermondsey through failing health as she lived there, I think, for about 5 years...Would she have survived this long if she had not been in good health..I dont think so. Coupled with the fact that in her Will she had so little to pass on to her loved ones. Elizabeth certainly paid the price for her earlier greed and plotting...
> Eileen
>
>
>
> I think we discussed the Bermondsey business on the forum once. Personally I can't see that it is likely to have been voluntary.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ashevillelist.com/history/medieval-women.htm
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, I do recall a brief piece in the Ricardian many years back about little Bridget. It seems that when Elizabeth Woodville dashed into Westminster Sanctuary with her daughters in 1483 Bridget was not with them - she was in the royal residence in the city known as the Wardrobe. Shortly after his arrival Richard had extra pillows sent over for her because she wasn't well.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie...Its only by keep asking and asking questions that will change the traditional view of Richard. Especially in questioning things that have been accepted without question and are quite honestly, when viewed with common sense, quite daft. And this means speculation too...(Dont'cha just love it when someone frowns on speculation on here and then goes ahead and speculates...lol)..As Wendy Moorhen once wrote in the Ricardian Bulletin in her article 'The Real Reason Why Hastings Lost his Head'..."Unless entrenched theories are challenged, history cannot develop"...

And yes please do write your article...

Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen,
>
> Henry's actions regarding Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset are intriguing and do raise awkward questions, as do other things that I really ought to write an article about.
> To my mind, with history as with science, the most important aid to making progress is to keep a head full of questions. No matter how much you learn, there should always be more questions.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie...I know that the matter of Elizabeth spending out the last years of her life in Bermondsey Abbey is just a small footnote in Ricardian history...but I actually think it is of great importance. If she was sent there against her own personal wishes, and we could know this for sure, imagine the difference it would make in our understanding of what befell the two princes....We would then know for sure that one or both or them survived....as then that would make sense of Elizabeth's behaviour... and the Weasle's reasons for punishing her...why would she want to indulge in plotting that would do her own daughter no good and possible harm...?
> >
> > I do agree with you that it seems likely that it was forced upon her....as she could not have gone into Bermondsey through failing health as she lived there, I think, for about 5 years...Would she have survived this long if she had not been in good health..I dont think so. Coupled with the fact that in her Will she had so little to pass on to her loved ones. Elizabeth certainly paid the price for her earlier greed and plotting...
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we discussed the Bermondsey business on the forum once. Personally I can't see that it is likely to have been voluntary.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ashevillelist.com/history/medieval-women.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Interestingly, I do recall a brief piece in the Ricardian many years back about little Bridget. It seems that when Elizabeth Woodville dashed into Westminster Sanctuary with her daughters in 1483 Bridget was not with them - she was in the royal residence in the city known as the Wardrobe. Shortly after his arrival Richard had extra pillows sent over for her because she wasn't well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an alternative reason...? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Don't you (sorry, Dont'cha) just love it when someone frowns on their
entrenched theories being challenged on here and then goes ahead and quotes
someone who thinks entrenched theories should be challenged? (I won't bother
with the 'lol' as I have a higher-than-required level of maturity.)

Speculation has never been 'frowned on' here, so far as I know. Some of us
just think it's not quite synonymous with 'evidence'. Speculation is (as
I've said before) an important part of thinking about and interpreting
history. Wild leaps to shaky conclusions aren't. Learning the difference
between these two can be quite a good thing. So can growing up.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:44:00 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter






Marie...Its only by keep asking and asking questions that will change the
traditional view of Richard. Especially in questioning things that have
been accepted without question and are quite honestly, when viewed with
common sense, quite daft. And this means speculation too...(Dont'cha just
love it when someone frowns on speculation on here and then goes ahead and
speculates...lol)..As Wendy Moorhen once wrote in the Ricardian Bulletin in
her article 'The Real Reason Why Hastings Lost his Head'..."Unless
entrenched theories are challenged, history cannot develop"...

And yes please do write your article...

Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen,
>
> Henry's actions regarding Elizabeth Woodville and Dorset are intriguing and do
raise awkward questions, as do other things that I really ought to write an
article about.
> To my mind, with history as with science, the most important aid to making
progress is to keep a head full of questions. No matter how much you learn,
there should always be more questions.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie...I know that the matter of Elizabeth spending out the last years of
her life in Bermondsey Abbey is just a small footnote in Ricardian history...but
I actually think it is of great importance. If she was sent there against her
own personal wishes, and we could know this for sure, imagine the difference it
would make in our understanding of what befell the two princes....We would then
know for sure that one or both or them survived....as then that would make sense
of Elizabeth's behaviour... and the Weasle's reasons for punishing her...why
would she want to indulge in plotting that would do her own daughter no good and
possible harm...?
> >
> > I do agree with you that it seems likely that it was forced upon her....as
she could not have gone into Bermondsey through failing health as she lived
there, I think, for about 5 years...Would she have survived this long if she had
not been in good health..I dont think so. Coupled with the fact that in her
Will she had so little to pass on to her loved ones. Elizabeth certainly paid
the price for her earlier greed and plotting...
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we discussed the Bermondsey business on the forum once. Personally
I can't see that it is likely to have been voluntary.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.ashevillelist.com/history/medieval-women.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Interestingly, I do recall a brief piece in the Ricardian many years
back about little Bridget. It seems that when Elizabeth Woodville dashed into
Westminster Sanctuary with her daughters in 1483 Bridget was not with them - she
was in the royal residence in the city known as the Wardrobe. Shortly after his
arrival Richard had extra pillows sent over for her because she wasn't well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mentally deficient"....exactly what I was thinking...why else would
they have sent such a small child to become a nun? Can anyone else think or an
alternative reason...? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@>
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay
Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval
times and people:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV
and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a
nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her
birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was
definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget
was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498,
Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new
history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not
keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is
more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We
certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an
early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to
in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or
sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in
that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to
remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of
Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But
wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read
("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for
her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child,
if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed
adultery.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Katy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly, though. Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death of Arthur and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to have more children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a friendly, if not affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people here who loathe him, but I'm not sure how confidently we can project that onto his wife. I wonder if she'd be surprised to find people expressing sorrow for her.

Carol responds:

Admittedly, we don't have much evidence either way. He delayed his marriage to her until two and a half months after his own coronation and delayed *her* coronation until nearly two years after their marriage and two months after their first son was born. Even Henry VII's devoted fan, Francis Bacon, wrote that Henry was "nothing uxorious." As for Elizabeth of York's feelings, she seems to have looked forward to her marriage to Don Manuel of Portugal. Whether she thought that marriage to the usurper responsible for the death and deposition of her uncle Richard was sufficient compensation would depend on her feelings about that uncle, which do not seem to have been resentful given her appearance at his Christmas festivities in 1483 in a gown of the same cloth as that of the queen.

We're all free to draw our own conclusions based on the limited evidence available, but I see no reason to think that Elizabeth would be happy to marry the man responsible for her uncle's death whether or not it made her queen of England. Certainly, she gained no power or influence, in marked contrast to her mother as Edward's queen.

Of course, judging a marriage by whether it was happy is to judge it by modern standards. I know that you don't like the term "pawn," but Elizabeth was in turn offered as wife to George, Duke of Bedford, the Dauphin, Manuel of Portugal, and, finally, Henry Tudor. Of these, the only marriage we have evidence (I don't say proof) of her desiring--not for love, of course, but for reasons of security, respectability, and political connections--is the Portuguese marriage that would have occurred had her uncle won the Battle of Bosworth, as she had every reason to anticipate that he would do. Knowing the Tydder's doubtful claim and his delay in keeping his promise to marry her, she may for all we know have hoped that it wouldn't take place.

Carol

Johanne Tournier wrote:

> I think it was Tey who referred to Henry as "unuxorious," which is a rather understated pejorative, but honestly I don't know enough about Henry's life after Bosworth to be able to make a firm judgment on his warmth at the> personal level.
>
<snip> He seems from what little I know to have been a cold fish, but then if he wasn't actually an abuser or a philanderer, like some kings I could mention, perhaps he was actually better than average in the realm of relations with his queen. <snip> On the other hand, I also recall reading that Henry was devastated upon the death of his Queen. And he never remarried, did he?

Carol responds:

Tey was following Bacon, who said that Henry VII was "nothing uxorious" and didn't indulge his wife (though he also says that Henry respected her, which is perhaps an overstatement given the delayed coronation and her exclusion from power and influence). I've snipped the comments on Henry and Elizabeth Woodville even though I'm interested in that discussion because I want to concentrate on his marriage here. I forgot to mention that Henry was quite ready to marry mad Juana of Spain, the widowed daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, after Elizabeth of York's death, presumably because she was beautiful and had produced children and because the marriage would strengthen the political connection with Spain. Possibly, the papal dispensation for a marriage to the sister of his late son Arthur's wife would have been hard to come by. (I haven't checked into this, so I'm not sure whether Catherine of Aragon was betrothed or married to Arthur's younger brother Henry yet.

Personally, I think that the recently discovered painting of Henry calmly accepting a book dedication while little Prince Henry weeps on the black-draped bed of his dead mother speaks volumes about Henry VII. As for Henry VII, perhaps he followed his father's example in being "unuxorious" as well as in being a tyrant.

I'm writing from memory, so if anyone finds errors in this post, please point them out.

Carol

Also Elizabeth had Margaret Beaufort as a mother-in-law.....I can recall reading somewhere (where?) that Margaret kept Elizabeth down somewhat...Eileen

> Tey was following Bacon, who said that Henry VII was "nothing uxorious" and didn't indulge his wife (though he also says that Henry respected her, which is perhaps an overstatement given the delayed coronation and her exclusion from power and influence). I've snipped the comments on Henry and Elizabeth Woodville even though I'm interested in that discussion because I want to concentrate on his marriage here. I forgot to mention that Henry was quite ready to marry mad Juana of Spain, the widowed daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, after Elizabeth of York's death, presumably because she was beautiful and had produced children and because the marriage would strengthen the political connection with Spain. Possibly, the papal dispensation for a marriage to the sister of his late son Arthur's wife would have been hard to come by. (I haven't checked into this, so I'm not sure whether Catherine of Aragon was betrothed or married to Arthur's younger brother Henry yet.
>
> Personally, I think that the recently discovered painting of Henry calmly accepting a book dedication while little Prince Henry weeps on the black-draped bed of his dead mother speaks volumes about Henry VII. As for Henry VII, perhaps he followed his father's example in being "unuxorious" as well as in being a tyrant.
>
> I'm writing from memory, so if anyone finds errors in this post, please point them out.
>
> Carol
>

I have serious questions about the real freedom of Elizabeth's consent to that marriage (for which there is evidence, but as always not proof). And Henry himself didn't go ahead with the wedding until this was demanded by parliament.
I think we need to ask ourselves:-
a) When it came to it, whether Henry would have wanted to go ahead with the marriage. Not only did he not wish to share power, but his behaviour all through his reign suggests that he did not know for sure what had become of Elizabeth's brothers.
b) If Elizabeth knew her brothers to be dead, why did she not tell Henry? If she did not, why would she want to marry him, and why would her mother want her to?
Marie





--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly, though. Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death of Arthur and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to have more children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a friendly, if not affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people here who loathe him, but I'm not sure how confidently we can project that onto his wife. I wonder if she'd be surprised to find people expressing sorrow for her.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Admittedly, we don't have much evidence either way. He delayed his marriage to her until two and a half months after his own coronation and delayed *her* coronation until nearly two years after their marriage and two months after their first son was born. Even Henry VII's devoted fan, Francis Bacon, wrote that Henry was "nothing uxorious." As for Elizabeth of York's feelings, she seems to have looked forward to her marriage to Don Manuel of Portugal. Whether she thought that marriage to the usurper responsible for the death and deposition of her uncle Richard was sufficient compensation would depend on her feelings about that uncle, which do not seem to have been resentful given her appearance at his Christmas festivities in 1483 in a gown of the same cloth as that of the queen.
>
> We're all free to draw our own conclusions based on the limited evidence available, but I see no reason to think that Elizabeth would be happy to marry the man responsible for her uncle's death whether or not it made her queen of England. Certainly, she gained no power or influence, in marked contrast to her mother as Edward's queen.
>
> Of course, judging a marriage by whether it was happy is to judge it by modern standards. I know that you don't like the term "pawn," but Elizabeth was in turn offered as wife to George, Duke of Bedford, the Dauphin, Manuel of Portugal, and, finally, Henry Tudor. Of these, the only marriage we have evidence (I don't say proof) of her desiring--not for love, of course, but for reasons of security, respectability, and political connections--is the Portuguese marriage that would have occurred had her uncle won the Battle of Bosworth, as she had every reason to anticipate that he would do. Knowing the Tydder's doubtful claim and his delay in keeping his promise to marry her, she may for all we know have hoped that it wouldn't take place.
>
> Carol
>

Marie good questions...

b) What were the options were open to Elizabeth Snr and Elizabeth Jnr in the wake of Bosworth? Was a Crown on the head better that a Crown in a bush...?

I agree...it does not make sense if mother and daughter knew that their sons/brothers were still alive to agree to the marriage....and yet..further down the line it would seem that Elizabeth was involved with plots and pretenders to the throne...

Is it possible Richard told the mother that her sons were safe, then later she was informed by Margaret Beaufort/Morton that they were in fact dead by Richard's hand and agreed to the Tudor marriage and then even more later she was informed that her sons or at least one of them had survived..

Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I have serious questions about the real freedom of Elizabeth's consent to that marriage (for which there is evidence, but as always not proof). And Henry himself didn't go ahead with the wedding until this was demanded by parliament.
> I think we need to ask ourselves:-
> a) When it came to it, whether Henry would have wanted to go ahead with the marriage. Not only did he not wish to share power, but his behaviour all through his reign suggests that he did not know for sure what had become of Elizabeth's brothers.
> b) If Elizabeth knew her brothers to be dead, why did she not tell Henry? If she did not, why would she want to marry him, and why would her mother want her to?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly, though. Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death of Arthur and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to have more children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a friendly, if not affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people here who loathe him, but I'm not sure how confidently we can project that onto his wife. I wonder if she'd be surprised to find people expressing sorrow for her.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Admittedly, we don't have much evidence either way. He delayed his marriage to her until two and a half months after his own coronation and delayed *her* coronation until nearly two years after their marriage and two months after their first son was born. Even Henry VII's devoted fan, Francis Bacon, wrote that Henry was "nothing uxorious." As for Elizabeth of York's feelings, she seems to have looked forward to her marriage to Don Manuel of Portugal. Whether she thought that marriage to the usurper responsible for the death and deposition of her uncle Richard was sufficient compensation would depend on her feelings about that uncle, which do not seem to have been resentful given her appearance at his Christmas festivities in 1483 in a gown of the same cloth as that of the queen.
> >
> > We're all free to draw our own conclusions based on the limited evidence available, but I see no reason to think that Elizabeth would be happy to marry the man responsible for her uncle's death whether or not it made her queen of England. Certainly, she gained no power or influence, in marked contrast to her mother as Edward's queen.
> >
> > Of course, judging a marriage by whether it was happy is to judge it by modern standards. I know that you don't like the term "pawn," but Elizabeth was in turn offered as wife to George, Duke of Bedford, the Dauphin, Manuel of Portugal, and, finally, Henry Tudor. Of these, the only marriage we have evidence (I don't say proof) of her desiring--not for love, of course, but for reasons of security, respectability, and political connections--is the Portuguese marriage that would have occurred had her uncle won the Battle of Bosworth, as she had every reason to anticipate that he would do. Knowing the Tydder's doubtful claim and his delay in keeping his promise to marry her, she may for all we know have hoped that it wouldn't take place.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Elizabeth did rather get spun around a bit in the marriage game! Henry did
delay both the marriage and her coronation, and for (from his perspective)
very practical reasons. She might have been expecting a little more
recognition for her claim to the throne, but given how shaky Henry's was,
she wasn't likely to get it.

Carol said: "but I see no reason to think that Elizabeth would be happy to
marry the man responsible for her uncle's death whether or not it made her
queen of England."

Having looked at the lives of several 15th century noblewomen, one in some
depth and the others with depth yet to come, they seem to have looked on
marriage with much more practical eyes than we do. They made the best of
whatever situation they were in, some in relative silence, others not so
much. Elizabeth Wydeville and her daughters certainly made what they could
of their rapprochement with Richard, but that needn't imply any deep sense
of beyond-the-grave loyalty to him. Dusting themselves off, spitting on
their hands and getting on with it after great tragedy, the deaths of
fathers and husbands, seems to have been a pattern. As with Anne Nevill and
the deaths of her father and first husband, we don't even get much more than
a glimpse of Elizabeth's emotional life after Bosworth. Her consent for the
marriage to Henry Tudor was a necessary part of the process and we don't
know how deeply involved in the conspiracy she was, whether she was looking
forward to it or not.

Carol said: "she may for all we know have hoped that it wouldn't take
place."

She may well have done, but it did take place and she seems to have both
made the best of it and a favourable impression on her husband. Of course we
don't know if the marriage was 'happy' any more than most marriages of the
time. From the little evidence we have, it would seem not to have been
particularly miserable.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:51:07 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across
anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly, though.
Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death of Arthur
and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to have more
children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a friendly, if not
affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people here who loathe him, but
I'm not sure how confidently we can project that onto his wife. I wonder if
she'd be surprised to find people expressing sorrow for her.

Carol responds:

Admittedly, we don't have much evidence either way. He delayed his marriage
to her until two and a half months after his own coronation and delayed
*her* coronation until nearly two years after their marriage and two months
after their first son was born. Even Henry VII's devoted fan, Francis Bacon,
wrote that Henry was "nothing uxorious." As for Elizabeth of York's
feelings, she seems to have looked forward to her marriage to Don Manuel of
Portugal. Whether she thought that marriage to the usurper responsible for
the death and deposition of her uncle Richard was sufficient compensation
would depend on her feelings about that uncle, which do not seem to have
been resentful given her appearance at his Christmas festivities in 1483 in
a gown of the same cloth as that of the queen.

We're all free to draw our own conclusions based on the limited evidence
available, but I see no reason to think that Elizabeth would be happy to
marry the man responsible for her uncle's death whether or not it made her
queen of England. Certainly, she gained no power or influence, in marked
contrast to her mother as Edward's queen.

Of course, judging a marriage by whether it was happy is to judge it by
modern standards. I know that you don't like the term "pawn," but Elizabeth
was in turn offered as wife to George, Duke of Bedford, the Dauphin, Manuel
of Portugal, and, finally, Henry Tudor. Of these, the only marriage we have
evidence (I don't say proof) of her desiring--not for love, of course, but
for reasons of security, respectability, and political connections--is the
Portuguese marriage that would have occurred had her uncle won the Battle of
Bosworth, as she had every reason to anticipate that he would do. Knowing
the Tydder's doubtful claim and his delay in keeping his promise to marry
her, she may for all we know have hoped that it wouldn't take place.

Carol

It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
certain that the princes were dead. What I said was "Either she knew
categorically that her brothers were dead or was prepared to take a huge
gamble in marrying Henry and becoming queen". The gamble being that either
one of them could resurface and attempt to depose her husband. Which neither
of them did.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:31:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter






I have serious questions about the real freedom of Elizabeth's consent to
that marriage (for which there is evidence, but as always not proof). And
Henry himself didn't go ahead with the wedding until this was demanded by
parliament.
I think we need to ask ourselves:-
a) When it came to it, whether Henry would have wanted to go ahead with the
marriage. Not only did he not wish to share power, but his behaviour all
through his reign suggests that he did not know for sure what had become of
Elizabeth's brothers.
b) If Elizabeth knew her brothers to be dead, why did she not tell Henry? If
she did not, why would she want to marry him, and why would her mother want
her to?
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, some kings treated their wives appallingly. I haven't come across
anything that suggests Henry VII treated Elizabeth of York appallingly, though.
Pretty much the only hints we have, their shared grief at the death of Arthur
and Elizabeth's statement that they were still young enough to have more
children, his faithfulness to her, suggests they had at least a friendly, if not
affectionate, marriage.I know there are a lot of people here who loathe him, but
I'm not sure how confidently we can project that onto his wife. I wonder if
she'd be surprised to find people expressing sorrow for her.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Admittedly, we don't have much evidence either way. He delayed his marriage to
her until two and a half months after his own coronation and delayed *her*
coronation until nearly two years after their marriage and two months after
their first son was born. Even Henry VII's devoted fan, Francis Bacon, wrote
that Henry was "nothing uxorious." As for Elizabeth of York's feelings, she
seems to have looked forward to her marriage to Don Manuel of Portugal. Whether
she thought that marriage to the usurper responsible for the death and
deposition of her uncle Richard was sufficient compensation would depend on her
feelings about that uncle, which do not seem to have been resentful given her
appearance at his Christmas festivities in 1483 in a gown of the same cloth as
that of the queen.
>
> We're all free to draw our own conclusions based on the limited evidence
available, but I see no reason to think that Elizabeth would be happy to marry
the man responsible for her uncle's death whether or not it made her queen of
England. Certainly, she gained no power or influence, in marked contrast to her
mother as Edward's queen.
>
> Of course, judging a marriage by whether it was happy is to judge it by modern
standards. I know that you don't like the term "pawn," but Elizabeth was in turn
offered as wife to George, Duke of Bedford, the Dauphin, Manuel of Portugal,
and, finally, Henry Tudor. Of these, the only marriage we have evidence (I don't
say proof) of her desiring--not for love, of course, but for reasons of
security, respectability, and political connections--is the Portuguese marriage
that would have occurred had her uncle won the Battle of Bosworth, as she had
every reason to anticipate that he would do. Knowing the Tydder's doubtful claim
and his delay in keeping his promise to marry her, she may for all we know have
hoped that it wouldn't take place.
>
> Carol
>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to depose her husband. Which neither of them did.

Carol responds:

Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).

Carol

On 12/11/2012 17:44, justcarol67 wrote:
> Personally, I think that the recently discovered painting of Henry calmly accepting a book dedication while little Prince Henry weeps on the black-draped bed of his dead mother speaks volumes about Henry VII. As for Henry VII, perhaps he followed his father's example in being "unuxorious" as well as in being a tyrant.

I don't recognise this description and googling didn't help - is the
picture available online? However, I would have thought that the
depiction is more the responsibility of the artist than the depicted.
Henry VIII was eleven when his mother died.

Best wishes
Christine

Carol earlier:
>
> > Personally, I think that the recently discovered painting of Henry calmly accepting a book dedication while little Prince Henry weeps on the black-draped bed of his dead mother speaks volumes about Henry VII. As for Henry VII, perhaps he followed his father's example in being "unuxorious" as well as in being a tyrant.

Christine responded:
> I don't recognise this description and googling didn't help - is the picture available online? However, I would have thought that the depiction is more the responsibility of the artist than the depicted. Henry VIII was eleven when his mother died.

Carol again:

Here's a link to the painting and the accompanying article:

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

About two months ago, we had a short discussion on the subject. Here's a link to the first post in the thread, which unfortunately is only a URL with no commentary, but you can follow the thread from there: http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/17230

The artist must have been commissioned to paint the dedication of the book to Henry VII, but I doubt that he would take the liberty of inventing young Prince Henry's grief for his mother. (Oddly, the two girls, assumed to be his sisters, are depicted as being much calmer though the younger would only have been about seven.

The reporter mentions Henry VII's cold relationship with his son and contrasts it with the boy's close relationship with his mother (no source cited). Makes me wonder how much Henry VII's treatment and example influenced what Henry VIII would later become.

BTW, in my earlier post, I accidentally typed "Henry VII" for "Henry VIII." I'm assuming that you supplied the missing numeral "I" as you read.

Carol

I thought Henry married Elizabeth of York less than nine months before their son Arthur was born, at the urging of Parliament, as Marie says. More likely Arthur was premature than that Henry wouldn't commit to her till a bun was in the oven, though, it seems. More likely she got pregnant immediately and Arthur was a bit premature.

Katy

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote [replying to Carol]

>
> I have serious questions about the real freedom of Elizabeth's consent to that marriage (for which there is evidence, but as always not proof). And Henry himself didn't go ahead with the wedding until this was demanded by parliament.


> > Carol (justcarol) wrote
> >
> > Admittedly, we don't have much evidence either way. He delayed his marriage to her until two and a half months after his own coronation and delayed *her* coronation until nearly two years after their marriage and two months after their first son was born.

Carol earlier:

Admittedly, we don't have much evidence either way. He delayed his marriage to her until two and a half months after his own coronation and delayed *her* coronation until nearly two years after their marriage and two months after their first son was born.

Katy responded:

> I thought Henry married Elizabeth of York less than nine months before their son Arthur was born, at the urging of Parliament, as Marie says. More likely Arthur was premature than that Henry wouldn't commit to her till a bun was in the oven, though, it seems. More likely she got pregnant immediately and Arthur was a bit premature.

Carol again:

Well, my math could be wrong. Let's see:

Henry's coronation: 30 October 1485

Marriage to Elizabeth of York: Two and a half months later on 18 January 1486

birth of Prince Arthur: Oops, you're right. Almost exactly nine months later on 20 September 1486

Elizabeth's coronation: Two months after Arthur's birth on 25 November 1487

So I was right on two counts, the delay between his coronation and their marriage and the delay between the birth of their child and her coronation. Still, she had to wait eleven months after their marriage, and only after she'd proven herself "worthy" by bearing a son.

Carol, who should learn not to do math in her head!

Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:27:48 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter








Karen Clark wrote:
>
> It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to
depose her husband. Which neither of them did.

Carol responds:

Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard
of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret
Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.

Carol responds:

I think that Margaret knew exactly who he was and exactly what she was doing whether he was her nephew or not. (I'm more and more inclined to think that Richard sent his nephews to her and that at least one survived the journey, but that's not really relevant here.)

I suspect that Elizabeth didn't want to know the truth. Yes, it would be wonderful if her younger brother were alive, but by this time, he'd have become a stranger to her and she'd had four children with Henry, two of them sons. If her brother (or the young man pretending to be her brother) became king, he would depose and probably kill her husband, leaving her and her children in a predicament similar to if not worse than Elizabeth Woodville's under Henry. (EW's predicament under Richard early in his reign was of her own making.) So while her mother seems to have involved herself in the Lambert Simnel rebellion (I can't think of no other reason for confining her in Bermondsey Abbey), Elizabeth of York would have had divided loyalties, and self-interest would have kept her quiet.

Poor Elizabeth. If only Henry had married, say, Maude Herbert. Or better still, if only Richard had won Bosworth. So many Yorkist heirs would have been saved, and Elizabeth could have become Queen of Portugal but still tied by blood to the king of England and by marriage to its queen. What an alliance that would have been, and what a coup for English exploration in the New World.

Oh, well. Instead, we got Henry Tudor paying less money to John Cabot for discovering Newfoundland than to "a demosel that daunceth."

Carol

Carol earlier:
>
> (I can't think of no other reason for confining her in Bermondsey Abbey) <snip>

Carol again:

Please to forgive mistake. Me no speak much English.

Carol

Carol

I think the 'was he? wasn't he?' Perkin debate is going to last a long time!
It's tricky ground for many Ricardians to walk, though, believing on the one
hand that Perkin was the young duke and on the other that Richard had
nothing to do with Edward V's death.

I wonder why Elizabeth Wydeville would have anything to do with the Lambert
Simnel plot, given it was claimed he was the grandson of a man who'd been
nothing but than her enemy from the start, and given her daughter was queen.
I definitely need to read up on it, but at first glance it makes little
sense.

Elizabeth's loyalties must have been sorely tried a few times in her life,
but in the end it seems they remained firmly with her children and husband.

The 'what ifs' of Richard surviving Bosworth are fascinating! So many
possibilities and no way (of course) of knowing which, if any, might have
come about.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:56:57 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her loyalties
lay by remaining silent on the matter.

Carol responds:

I think that Margaret knew exactly who he was and exactly what she was doing
whether he was her nephew or not. (I'm more and more inclined to think that
Richard sent his nephews to her and that at least one survived the journey,
but that's not really relevant here.)

I suspect that Elizabeth didn't want to know the truth. Yes, it would be
wonderful if her younger brother were alive, but by this time, he'd have
become a stranger to her and she'd had four children with Henry, two of them
sons. If her brother (or the young man pretending to be her brother) became
king, he would depose and probably kill her husband, leaving her and her
children in a predicament similar to if not worse than Elizabeth Woodville's
under Henry. (EW's predicament under Richard early in his reign was of her
own making.) So while her mother seems to have involved herself in the
Lambert Simnel rebellion (I can't think of no other reason for confining her
in Bermondsey Abbey), Elizabeth of York would have had divided loyalties,
and self-interest would have kept her quiet.

Poor Elizabeth. If only Henry had married, say, Maude Herbert. Or better
still, if only Richard had won Bosworth. So many Yorkist heirs would have
been saved, and Elizabeth could have become Queen of Portugal but still tied
by blood to the king of England and by marriage to its queen. What an
alliance that would have been, and what a coup for English exploration in
the New World.

Oh, well. Instead, we got Henry Tudor paying less money to John Cabot for
discovering Newfoundland than to "a demosel that daunceth."

Carol

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

>
> The 'what ifs' of Richard surviving Bosworth are fascinating! So many
> possibilities and no way (of course) of knowing which, if any, might have
> come about.
>
> Karen



One of my favorite what-ifs Richard had won at Bosworth is this -- when Christopher Columbus was trying to find a backer for his expedition to find a new route to the Orient, his brother made an appointment to present the proposition to Henry VII. Henry stood him up. If Richard had been on the throne, would he have financed Columbus? If he had, the "river of gold" would have flowed from the New World to England, not Spain, and how different history would have been.

Katy

Hi Carol,

Maths still not quite right, I'm afraid. The coronation was 14 months after Prince Arthur's birth. She had been queen for almost two years by that time. It has been suggested that it was the Lambert Simnel rebellion that finally persuaded Henry he had to have her crowned.

Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> Admittedly, we don't have much evidence either way. He delayed his marriage to her until two and a half months after his own coronation and delayed *her* coronation until nearly two years after their marriage and two months after their first son was born.
>
> Katy responded:
>
> > I thought Henry married Elizabeth of York less than nine months before their son Arthur was born, at the urging of Parliament, as Marie says. More likely Arthur was premature than that Henry wouldn't commit to her till a bun was in the oven, though, it seems. More likely she got pregnant immediately and Arthur was a bit premature.
>
> Carol again:
>
> Well, my math could be wrong. Let's see:
>
> Henry's coronation: 30 October 1485
>
> Marriage to Elizabeth of York: Two and a half months later on 18 January 1486
>
> birth of Prince Arthur: Oops, you're right. Almost exactly nine months later on 20 September 1486
>
> Elizabeth's coronation: Two months after Arthur's birth on 25 November 1487
>
> So I was right on two counts, the delay between his coronation and their marriage and the delay between the birth of their child and her coronation. Still, she had to wait eleven months after their marriage, and only after she'd proven herself "worthy" by bearing a son.
>
> Carol, who should learn not to do math in her head!
>

Well, she had children by that time. If Perkin was Elizabeth's brother, can you imagine the horror of that situation for her?
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
> that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
> convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
> loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:27:48 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
> certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
> he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to
> depose her husband. Which neither of them did.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard
> of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret
> Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely! I can't imagine a more difficult position for someone to be in.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:53:09 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter






Well, she had children by that time. If Perkin was Elizabeth's brother, can
you imagine the horror of that situation for her?
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
> that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
> convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
> loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:27:48 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
> certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
> he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to
> depose her husband. Which neither of them did.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard
> of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret
> Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It certainly won't reach any Greyfriars-style conclusion as "Perkin"'s grave seems to have been bombed. It is a very open question and we know that "Perkin" is not the only possibility or Shrewsbury.

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter



Carol

I think the 'was he? wasn't he?' Perkin debate is going to last a long time!
It's tricky ground for many Ricardians to walk, though, believing on the one
hand that Perkin was the young duke and on the other that Richard had
nothing to do with Edward V's death.

I wonder why Elizabeth Wydeville would have anything to do with the Lambert
Simnel plot, given it was claimed he was the grandson of a man who'd been
nothing but than her enemy from the start, and given her daughter was queen.
I definitely need to read up on it, but at first glance it makes little
sense.

Elizabeth's loyalties must have been sorely tried a few times in her life,
but in the end it seems they remained firmly with her children and husband.

The 'what ifs' of Richard surviving Bosworth are fascinating! So many
possibilities and no way (of course) of knowing which, if any, might have
come about.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:56:57 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her loyalties
lay by remaining silent on the matter.

Carol responds:

I think that Margaret knew exactly who he was and exactly what she was doing
whether he was her nephew or not. (I'm more and more inclined to think that
Richard sent his nephews to her and that at least one survived the journey,
but that's not really relevant here.)

I suspect that Elizabeth didn't want to know the truth. Yes, it would be
wonderful if her younger brother were alive, but by this time, he'd have
become a stranger to her and she'd had four children with Henry, two of them
sons. If her brother (or the young man pretending to be her brother) became
king, he would depose and probably kill her husband, leaving her and her
children in a predicament similar to if not worse than Elizabeth Woodville's
under Henry. (EW's predicament under Richard early in his reign was of her
own making.) So while her mother seems to have involved herself in the
Lambert Simnel rebellion (I can't think of no other reason for confining her
in Bermondsey Abbey), Elizabeth of York would have had divided loyalties,
and self-interest would have kept her quiet.

Poor Elizabeth. If only Henry had married, say, Maude Herbert. Or better
still, if only Richard had won Bosworth. So many Yorkist heirs would have
been saved, and Elizabeth could have become Queen of Portugal but still tied
by blood to the king of England and by marriage to its queen. What an
alliance that would have been, and what a coup for English exploration in
the New World.

Oh, well. Instead, we got Henry Tudor paying less money to John Cabot for
discovering Newfoundland than to "a demosel that daunceth."

Carol

Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -



Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
"Shrewsbury" in this context?



I know very little about Perkin Warbeck. The fact that Margaret of Burgundy
believed that Perkin was Edward V's younger brother, Richard, has been
mentioned. I am curious - how well would Margaret have been acquainted with
young Richard during the time he was in the bosom of his family? Did the two
families visit one another across the Channel while Edward was king? About
how often would they have been in each other's presence?



Also - does it appear that Perkin would have been "coached" by Brampton?
What happened to Brampton after Bosworth? It seems that he would be an
interesting character - a converted Jew who was knighted by Richard - to do
some further study on. Or has that been done?



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter



It certainly won't reach any Greyfriars-style conclusion as "Perkin"'s
grave seems to have been bombed. It is a very open question and we know that
"Perkin" is not the only possibility or Shrewsbury.

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Carol

I think the 'was he? wasn't he?' Perkin debate is going to last a long time!
It's tricky ground for many Ricardians to walk, though, believing on the one
hand that Perkin was the young duke and on the other that Richard had
nothing to do with Edward V's death.

I wonder why Elizabeth Wydeville would have anything to do with the Lambert
Simnel plot, given it was claimed he was the grandson of a man who'd been
nothing but than her enemy from the start, and given her daughter was queen.
I definitely need to read up on it, but at first glance it makes little
sense.

Elizabeth's loyalties must have been sorely tried a few times in her life,
but in the end it seems they remained firmly with her children and husband.

The 'what ifs' of Richard surviving Bosworth are fascinating! So many
possibilities and no way (of course) of knowing which, if any, might have
come about.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:56:57 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
loyalties
lay by remaining silent on the matter.

Carol responds:

I think that Margaret knew exactly who he was and exactly what she was doing
whether he was her nephew or not. (I'm more and more inclined to think that
Richard sent his nephews to her and that at least one survived the journey,
but that's not really relevant here.)

I suspect that Elizabeth didn't want to know the truth. Yes, it would be
wonderful if her younger brother were alive, but by this time, he'd have
become a stranger to her and she'd had four children with Henry, two of them
sons. If her brother (or the young man pretending to be her brother) became
king, he would depose and probably kill her husband, leaving her and her
children in a predicament similar to if not worse than Elizabeth Woodville's
under Henry. (EW's predicament under Richard early in his reign was of her
own making.) So while her mother seems to have involved herself in the
Lambert Simnel rebellion (I can't think of no other reason for confining her
in Bermondsey Abbey), Elizabeth of York would have had divided loyalties,
and self-interest would have kept her quiet.

Poor Elizabeth. If only Henry had married, say, Maude Herbert. Or better
still, if only Richard had won Bosworth. So many Yorkist heirs would have
been saved, and Elizabeth could have become Queen of Portugal but still tied
by blood to the king of England and by marriage to its queen. What an
alliance that would have been, and what a coup for English exploration in
the New World.

Oh, well. Instead, we got Henry Tudor paying less money to John Cabot for
discovering Newfoundland than to "a demosel that daunceth."

Carol

Marie...do you think she was ever allowed to see Perkin....? Im pretty sure even after the lapse of time she would have been able to recognise him and if allowed to speak to him and importantly shoot him down in flames if he was a pretender. Looks as if, as far as we know, this was not allowed to happen....If not why? Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Well, she had children by that time. If Perkin was Elizabeth's brother, can you imagine the horror of that situation for her?
> Marie
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
> > that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
> > convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
> > loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:27:48 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
> > certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
> > he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to
> > depose her husband. Which neither of them did.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard
> > of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret
> > Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)



Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -

Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
"Shrewsbury" in this context?

I know very little about Perkin Warbeck. The fact that Margaret of Burgundy
believed that Perkin was Edward V's younger brother, Richard, has been
mentioned. I am curious - how well would Margaret have been acquainted with
young Richard during the time he was in the bosom of his family? Did the two
families visit one another across the Channel while Edward was king? About
how often would they have been in each other's presence?

Also - does it appear that Perkin would have been "coached" by Brampton?
What happened to Brampton after Bosworth? It seems that he would be an
interesting character - a converted Jew who was knighted by Richard - to do
some further study on. Or has that been done?

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

It certainly won't reach any Greyfriars-style conclusion as "Perkin"'s
grave seems to have been bombed. It is a very open question and we know that
"Perkin" is not the only possibility or Shrewsbury.

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's
daughter

Carol

I think the 'was he? wasn't he?' Perkin debate is going to last a long time!
It's tricky ground for many Ricardians to walk, though, believing on the one
hand that Perkin was the young duke and on the other that Richard had
nothing to do with Edward V's death.

I wonder why Elizabeth Wydeville would have anything to do with the Lambert
Simnel plot, given it was claimed he was the grandson of a man who'd been
nothing but than her enemy from the start, and given her daughter was queen.
I definitely need to read up on it, but at first glance it makes little
sense.

Elizabeth's loyalties must have been sorely tried a few times in her life,
but in the end it seems they remained firmly with her children and husband.

The 'what ifs' of Richard surviving Bosworth are fascinating! So many
possibilities and no way (of course) of knowing which, if any, might have
come about.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:56:57 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
loyalties
lay by remaining silent on the matter.

Carol responds:

I think that Margaret knew exactly who he was and exactly what she was doing
whether he was her nephew or not. (I'm more and more inclined to think that
Richard sent his nephews to her and that at least one survived the journey,
but that's not really relevant here.)

I suspect that Elizabeth didn't want to know the truth. Yes, it would be
wonderful if her younger brother were alive, but by this time, he'd have
become a stranger to her and she'd had four children with Henry, two of them
sons. If her brother (or the young man pretending to be her brother) became
king, he would depose and probably kill her husband, leaving her and her
children in a predicament similar to if not worse than Elizabeth Woodville's
under Henry. (EW's predicament under Richard early in his reign was of her
own making.) So while her mother seems to have involved herself in the
Lambert Simnel rebellion (I can't think of no other reason for confining her
in Bermondsey Abbey), Elizabeth of York would have had divided loyalties,
and self-interest would have kept her quiet.

Poor Elizabeth. If only Henry had married, say, Maude Herbert. Or better
still, if only Richard had won Bosworth. So many Yorkist heirs would have
been saved, and Elizabeth could have become Queen of Portugal but still tied
by blood to the king of England and by marriage to its queen. What an
alliance that would have been, and what a coup for English exploration in
the New World.

Oh, well. Instead, we got Henry Tudor paying less money to John Cabot for
discovering Newfoundland than to "a demosel that daunceth."

Carol

Hi, Stephen -

OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)



One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
adds to my confusion!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)





I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
Penman on E IV's daughter)

Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -

Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
"Shrewsbury" in this context?



[JLT] <snip>

Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...

Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.


> Hi, Stephen -
>
> OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
>
>
>
> One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> adds to my confusion!
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
>
>
>
>
>
> I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Johanne Tournier
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> Penman on E IV's daughter)
>
> Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
>
> Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> "Shrewsbury" in this context?
>
>
>
> [JLT] <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Btw....Excellent post Carol....

-
>
> I think that Margaret knew exactly who he was and exactly what she was doing whether he was her nephew or not. (I'm more and more inclined to think that Richard sent his nephews to her and that at least one survived the journey, but that's not really relevant here.)
>
> I suspect that Elizabeth didn't want to know the truth. Yes, it would be wonderful if her younger brother were alive, but by this time, he'd have become a stranger to her and she'd had four children with Henry, two of them sons. If her brother (or the young man pretending to be her brother) became king, he would depose and probably kill her husband, leaving her and her children in a predicament similar to if not worse than Elizabeth Woodville's under Henry. (EW's predicament under Richard early in his reign was of her own making.) So while her mother seems to have involved herself in the Lambert Simnel rebellion (I can't think of no other reason for confining her in Bermondsey Abbey), Elizabeth of York would have had divided loyalties, and self-interest would have kept her quiet.
>
> Poor Elizabeth. If only Henry had married, say, Maude Herbert. Or better still, if only Richard had won Bosworth. So many Yorkist heirs would have been saved, and Elizabeth could have become Queen of Portugal but still tied by blood to the king of England and by marriage to its queen. What an alliance that would have been, and what a coup for English exploration in the New World.
>
> Oh, well. Instead, we got Henry Tudor paying less money to John Cabot for discovering Newfoundland than to "a demosel that daunceth."
>
> Carol
>

Westminster.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:50 PM
Subject: RE: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)



Hi, Stephen -

OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)

One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
adds to my confusion!

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)

I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
Penman on E IV's daughter)

Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -

Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
"Shrewsbury" in this context?

[JLT] <snip>

I've always thought that Eileen. It wouldn't make sense would it? Richard had made John de la Pole his heir so if the Princes were dead why wasn't he fighting the battle for himself not for an imposter. I suppose that if Edward or Richard were at Stoke they could have been spirited away after the Battle and "Lambert Simnel" left in their place. There was a discussion on here a while back about Frances Lovel escaping after Stoke he could have taken Edward or Richard with him. Also another thought is that Mr Tydder wouldn't want to admit that one of the Princes had been killed at Stoke ( if one of them was) so the story about Lambert Simnel could have been his get out clause.

Some years ago there was a very good article in the Ricardian about Edward supposedly being in Ireland just before Stoke and being crowned there. I can't remember who wrote it and all my old Ricardians are packed away since I moved. Perhaps someone else will remember it but I remember being quite intrigued at the time.

Mary

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
>
> Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
>
>
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > adds to my confusion!
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Johanne Tournier
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> >
> > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> >
> > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> >
> >
> >
> > [JLT] <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Except Lambert Simnel was supposedly the young Earl of Warwick, who everyone
knew was both alive and in the Tower.

Karen

From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:07:19 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)






I've always thought that Eileen. It wouldn't make sense would it? Richard
had made John de la Pole his heir so if the Princes were dead why wasn't he
fighting the battle for himself not for an imposter. I suppose that if
Edward or Richard were at Stoke they could have been spirited away after the
Battle and "Lambert Simnel" left in their place. There was a discussion on
here a while back about Frances Lovel escaping after Stoke he could have
taken Edward or Richard with him. Also another thought is that Mr Tydder
wouldn't want to admit that one of the Princes had been killed at Stoke ( if
one of them was) so the story about Lambert Simnel could have been his get
out clause.

Some years ago there was a very good article in the Ricardian about Edward
supposedly being in Ireland just before Stoke and being crowned there. I
can't remember who wrote it and all my old Ricardians are packed away since
I moved. Perhaps someone else will remember it but I remember being quite
intrigued at the time.

Mary

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of
the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would
Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of
Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the
sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter?
Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the
throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me
think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
>
> Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous
that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and
with his face beaten to a pulp.
>
>
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > adds to my confusion!
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Johanne Tournier
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> >
> > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> >
> > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> >
> >
> >
> > [JLT] <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Karen Clark wrote:

"Elizabeth did rather get spun around a bit in the marriage game! Henry did
delay both the marriage and her coronation, and for (from his perspective)
very practical reasons. She might have been expecting a little more
recognition for her claim to the throne, but given how shaky Henry's was,
she wasn't likely to get it."

My impression, for what it's worth, is that Henry desperately wanted to NOT
base his "right" to the throne in any way on anything other than himself and
his OWN right to the throne. A "political" marriage to the eldest daughter
of Edward IV not only wouldn't do that, it would show that Henry WASN'T
ruling solely because he was Henry.
I hope that makes sense!

"Having looked at the lives of several 15th century noblewomen, one in some
depth and the others with depth yet to come, they seem to have looked on
marriage with much more practical eyes than we do. They made the best of
whatever situation they were in, some in relative silence, others not so
much. Elizabeth Wydeville and her daughters certainly made what they could
of their rapprochement with Richard, but that needn't imply any deep sense
of beyond-the-grave loyalty to him. Dusting themselves off, spitting on
their hands and getting on with it after great tragedy, the deaths of
fathers and husbands, seems to have been a pattern. As with Anne Nevill and
the deaths of her father and first husband, we don't even get much more than
a glimpse of Elizabeth's emotional life after Bosworth. Her consent for the
marriage to Henry Tudor was a necessary part of the process and we don't
know how deeply involved in the conspiracy she was, whether she was looking
forward to it or not."

I rather think the "practicality" Elizabeth Woodville, Anne and other
females showed, while quite true, is also where many people tend to get the
idea of these women as being "pawns"; because their options WERE so limited.
As you say, the view of marriage during this period, and others, was much
different from ours. Especially for the nobility and members of the various
royal families.

"She may well have done, but it did take place and she seems to have both
made the best of it and a favourable impression on her husband. Of course we
don't know if the marriage was 'happy' any more than most marriages of the
time. From the little evidence we have, it would seem not to have been
particularly miserable."

Again my personal view, but I do wonder if many (most?) such marriages
weren't looked on more as a sort of partnership with the wife being the,
definitely!, junior partner? If one was very lucky real feelings of love
MIGHT develop between the two involved; if not, then a close friendship,
which often proves a sturdier emotion than passion could be hoped for.
However it was accomplished though, a definite working relationship does
seem to have been established between Henry and Elizabeth, and many others
in the same circumstances.
Doug

Douglas said:

"Again my personal view, but I do wonder if many (most?) such marriages
weren't looked on more as a sort of partnership with the wife being the,
definitely!, junior partner? If one was very lucky real feelings of love
MIGHT develop between the two involved; if not, then a close friendship,
which often proves a sturdier emotion than passion could be hoped for.
However it was accomplished though, a definite working relationship does
seem to have been established between Henry and Elizabeth, and many others
in the same circumstances."

Yes! That sense of a partnership comes through very strongly in a lot of
15th century marriages. Wives may have been 'junior' partners, but the
importance of their contribution was recognised. The expectation that they'd
step up when their husband's were unavailable shows in Margaret Paston's
defence of Caistor Castle and the countess of Salisbury's involvement (to
the point of attainder) in her husband's rebellion. (Which it wasn't,
strictly speaking, until the battle of Blore Heath, which is cited
specifically in the act of attainder in 1459. The countess may have been
raising troops for her husband and sons.)

Karen

Mary...No sense at all. And also remember that one of the Stanley brothers was also supposed to have said if Perkin was indeed one of the princes he would not fight him. Therefore someone quite close to the Tudor royal family was thinking on the lines that at least one of the princes had survived. Shortly after which he was executed...

Poor Lambert Simnel was merely a stalking horse...Luckily for him Mr Tydder spared him...

I must say it hadnt occurred to me that Frances Lovell might have taken the the prince with him when he fled the battle. Come to think of it Frances would have kept the prince close at hand if he were there. Its pretty intriguing isnt it...

That article you mention....was that the one which touched on the chance that Prince Edward could have been killed at Stoke? The Ricardians are such good reading but it is hard to remember which copy had which article in....
Eileen
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I've always thought that Eileen. It wouldn't make sense would it? Richard had made John de la Pole his heir so if the Princes were dead why wasn't he fighting the battle for himself not for an imposter. I suppose that if Edward or Richard were at Stoke they could have been spirited away after the Battle and "Lambert Simnel" left in their place. There was a discussion on here a while back about Frances Lovel escaping after Stoke he could have taken Edward or Richard with him. Also another thought is that Mr Tydder wouldn't want to admit that one of the Princes had been killed at Stoke ( if one of them was) so the story about Lambert Simnel could have been his get out clause.
>
> Some years ago there was a very good article in the Ricardian about Edward supposedly being in Ireland just before Stoke and being crowned there. I can't remember who wrote it and all my old Ricardians are packed away since I moved. Perhaps someone else will remember it but I remember being quite intrigued at the time.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
> >
> > Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
> >
> >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > > adds to my confusion!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Johanne Tournier
> > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> > >
> > > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [JLT] <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

There is apparently no evidence that they ever met, but they may have done. But certainly if Elizabeth had been asked to formally identify him as her brother or not, we would know about it.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Marie...do you think she was ever allowed to see Perkin....? Im pretty sure even after the lapse of time she would have been able to recognise him and if allowed to speak to him and importantly shoot him down in flames if he was a pretender. Looks as if, as far as we know, this was not allowed to happen....If not why? Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, she had children by that time. If Perkin was Elizabeth's brother, can you imagine the horror of that situation for her?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
> > > that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
> > > convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
> > > loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:27:48 -0000
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
> > > certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
> > > he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to
> > > depose her husband. Which neither of them did.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard
> > > of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret
> > > Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

It's a fair point about Lincoln, except that he was putting his life on the line for the Earl of Warwick. He was no longer alive when Perkin surfaced.
Marie


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
>
> Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
>
>
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > adds to my confusion!
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Johanne Tournier
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> >
> > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> >
> > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> >
> >
> >
> > [JLT] <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

You still have some work to do on this period, then.
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Except Lambert Simnel was supposedly the young Earl of Warwick, who everyone
> knew was both alive and in the Tower.
>
> Karen
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:07:19 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've always thought that Eileen. It wouldn't make sense would it? Richard
> had made John de la Pole his heir so if the Princes were dead why wasn't he
> fighting the battle for himself not for an imposter. I suppose that if
> Edward or Richard were at Stoke they could have been spirited away after the
> Battle and "Lambert Simnel" left in their place. There was a discussion on
> here a while back about Frances Lovel escaping after Stoke he could have
> taken Edward or Richard with him. Also another thought is that Mr Tydder
> wouldn't want to admit that one of the Princes had been killed at Stoke ( if
> one of them was) so the story about Lambert Simnel could have been his get
> out clause.
>
> Some years ago there was a very good article in the Ricardian about Edward
> supposedly being in Ireland just before Stoke and being crowned there. I
> can't remember who wrote it and all my old Ricardians are packed away since
> I moved. Perhaps someone else will remember it but I remember being quite
> intrigued at the time.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of
> the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would
> Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of
> Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the
> sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter?
> Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the
> throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me
> think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
> >
> > Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous
> that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and
> with his face beaten to a pulp.
> >
> >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > > adds to my confusion!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Johanne Tournier
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> > >
> > > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [JLT] <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's so ludicrous....think about it...Someone is saying he is your young brother. It is of enormous importance....and yet....seemingly, you do not get to meet him. Im sure even after the lapse of time since she had last seen him, Elizabeth, if allowed to, would have been able to suss this young man out. As you say there is no mention that they did meet but I would have thought it very likely that had they met and Elizabeth then had said no this is not my brother this would have been broadcast loud and clear. Why was it not done? Its crazy...Weasle and whoever was advising him must have thought that it was a possibility.

And what of Elizabeth herself...what did she think? Was she at all curious...Whatever her thoughts were on the repercussions she must have wondered....Did she ask? Did she kick up a fuss...?

Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> There is apparently no evidence that they ever met, but they may have done. But certainly if Elizabeth had been asked to formally identify him as her brother or not, we would know about it.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie...do you think she was ever allowed to see Perkin....? Im pretty sure even after the lapse of time she would have been able to recognise him and if allowed to speak to him and importantly shoot him down in flames if he was a pretender. Looks as if, as far as we know, this was not allowed to happen....If not why? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, she had children by that time. If Perkin was Elizabeth's brother, can you imagine the horror of that situation for her?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
> > > > that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
> > > > convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
> > > > loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > Reply-To: <>
> > > > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:27:48 -0000
> > > > To: <>
> > > > Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
> > > > certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
> > > > he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to
> > > > depose her husband. Which neither of them did.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard
> > > > of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret
> > > > Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie..OK...but could Lincoln have known at the time there was a surviving prince...I find it odd that as Lincoln had been named by Richard as his heir he would be fighting to put young Warwick on the throne as Richard had changed his about him, Warwick, possibly because he was not up to the job and maybe some kind of mental deficiency...

I would have thought it imperative to the Yorkist cause, that their candidate for the throne should be strong and of sufficient age to be able rule...Surely young Warwick was not an ideal candidate...

ps...How different things would have turned out for this young man if the Yorkists had overthrown Weasle...poor thing...Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> It's a fair point about Lincoln, except that he was putting his life on the line for the Earl of Warwick. He was no longer alive when Perkin surfaced.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
> >
> > Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
> >
> >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > > adds to my confusion!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Johanne Tournier
> > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> > >
> > > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [JLT] <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Sorry..also meant to say that Perkin is reported to have said that his brother Edward was indeed murdered but a duke (Buckingham?) took pity on him and allowed him to live!? Its aspects of his story/confession sews the seed of doubt in my mind as to Perkin being Richard. Of course...parts of his confession could have been doctored...I dont doubt that for one moment. I mean Weasle and his advisors were hardly likely to let the truth out....why change course at that juncture...Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Marie..OK...but could Lincoln have known at the time there was a surviving prince...I find it odd that as Lincoln had been named by Richard as his heir he would be fighting to put young Warwick on the throne as Richard had changed his about him, Warwick, possibly because he was not up to the job and maybe some kind of mental deficiency...
>
> I would have thought it imperative to the Yorkist cause, that their candidate for the throne should be strong and of sufficient age to be able rule...Surely young Warwick was not an ideal candidate...
>
> ps...How different things would have turned out for this young man if the Yorkists had overthrown Weasle...poor thing...Eileen
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's a fair point about Lincoln, except that he was putting his life on the line for the Earl of Warwick. He was no longer alive when Perkin surfaced.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
> > >
> > > Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi, Stephen -
> > > >
> > > > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > > > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > > > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > > > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > > > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > > > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > > > adds to my confusion!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > >
> > > > or jltournier@
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > > > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > > > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Johanne Tournier
> > > > To:
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > > > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > > > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> > > >
> > > > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > > > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [JLT] <snip>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Except Lambert Simnel was supposedly the young Earl of Warwick, who everyone
> knew was both alive and in the Tower.
>
> Karen



I'm leery of things "everyone knows." For instance, everyone knows that Richard murdered his nephews, if you ask almost anyone who isn't a historian.

Katy

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> I think the 'was he? wasn't he?' Perkin debate is going to last a long time! It's tricky ground for many Ricardians to walk, though, believing on the one hand that Perkin was the young duke and on the other that Richard had nothing to do with Edward V's death.
>
> I wonder why Elizabeth Wydeville would have anything to do with the Lambert Simnel plot, given it was claimed he was the grandson of a man who'd been nothing but than her enemy from the start, and given her daughter was queen. <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree that these are tricky questions and we may never know the answers. The least probable explanation, though, it that the hired murderers killed Edward ("late calling himself Edward V," to put it in fifteenth-century terms) but allowed his brother Richard to live since that would have made little Richard the "rightful" king from the Woodville perspective. Other possibilities are that he drowned in the crossing or, more likely, died of natural causes.

Alternatively, Perkin Warbeck could have been George of Clarence's otherwise unknown illegitimate son. Some people have even postulated that he was Margaret's own secretly conceived and secretly borne illegitimate son though how she would have hidden her pregnancy even under medieval clothing I don't know. The idea that he was just some ordinary boy who happened to resemble the young Edward IV (like Lambert Simnel) seems harder to swallow, especially given his courtly manners. And in any of these instances, how would Perkin know so much about English affairs up to 1483 when Margaret, who ostensibly taught him everything, left England in 1468 and did not have a regular correspondence with Edward IV? (Richard may be another matter since they seem to have maintained a secret correspondence.)

Of course, both boys could have died under other circumstances (plague, sweating sickness, drowning).

With regard to Lambert Simnel, he could have been a cover for the real Edward V (or Richard of York) or a cover for John de la Pole, who interestingly did not openly claim to be Richard III's heir; maybe he planned to be a power behind the scenes. Henry VII was very disappointed at the Earl of Lincoln's death because he wanted answers to these same questions.

All we really know is that the people who took part in the Battle of Stoke on the Yorkist side really wanted a Yorkist (heir or puppet) on the throne in place of Henry Tudor, and Margaret kept supporting pretenders (in the sense of claimants and possibly in the sense of what Henry Tudor called "feigned boys") for most of her life. She also sheltered Edmund de la Pole (a genuine Yorkist heir through his mother) after Perkin Warbeck's death.

The common denominator seems to be the Yorkist cause even if it meant reversing Titulus Regius (without, one would hope, blackening Richard's name) and opposing Henry Tudor.

Carol

We've only got Rows' word for it that Lincoln was chosen by Richard as his heir, and even he says he initially picked Warwick, then locked him up and chose Lincoln instead. At the time, of course, he was probably trying to persuade Henry VII he was not a real threat so he would release him from the Tower.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Marie..OK...but could Lincoln have known at the time there was a surviving prince...I find it odd that as Lincoln had been named by Richard as his heir he would be fighting to put young Warwick on the throne as Richard had changed his about him, Warwick, possibly because he was not up to the job and maybe some kind of mental deficiency...
>
> I would have thought it imperative to the Yorkist cause, that their candidate for the throne should be strong and of sufficient age to be able rule...Surely young Warwick was not an ideal candidate...
>
> ps...How different things would have turned out for this young man if the Yorkists had overthrown Weasle...poor thing...Eileen
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's a fair point about Lincoln, except that he was putting his life on the line for the Earl of Warwick. He was no longer alive when Perkin surfaced.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
> > >
> > > Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi, Stephen -
> > > >
> > > > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > > > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > > > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > > > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > > > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > > > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > > > adds to my confusion!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > >
> > > > or jltournier@
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > > > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > > > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Johanne Tournier
> > > > To:
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > > > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > > > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> > > >
> > > > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > > > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [JLT] <snip>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

There's a lovely 2005 "Princes in the Tower" costume drama on YouTube that has wonderful presentations of all the characters (though I have to warn that R3 appears for only a few seconds) in the Perkin W. story.

I found it entertaining, regardless it plays fast and loose with history. Elizabeth has a strong role in it (again against history), but her reactions -- and husband Henry's -- are a lot of fun to watch. Every character has his/her own moment, which I think is because of how the production was made "off leash", as it were. As the actor playing Perkin said:

"It was supposed to be a typical doco-drama," he says. "About a third of it was going to be talking heads, with the rest cobbled-together drama. The director, Justin Hardy, lived in France so we all went over for a couple of weeks and took over the dungeons of some chateau in the Dordogne, which was all very nice. But because Channel 4 weren't there to supervise us, we kind of mutinied.

"The writer was there with us [so] we actually made a full-length drama instead. Thankfully, Channel 4 really liked it, because it can be dangerous getting a load of actors together in a dungeon, fighting about how they want their scenes to go!"

Complete 2008 Interview with Mark Umbers (Perkin) here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/secrets-of-the-tower-unlocked/2008/12/20/1229189941812.html

Video here:
Part I: http://youtu.be/cFv_kcJyhNE
Part II: http://youtu.be/UCUttQzvHqk

There's also a "highly fictional documentary" here: http://youtu.be/8mM_BKT5mtQ
but I've not had time to watch it yet. It's two hours long.

~Wednesday

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> It's so ludicrous....think about it...Someone is saying he is your young brother. It is of enormous importance....and yet....seemingly, you do not get to meet him. Im sure even after the lapse of time since she had last seen him, Elizabeth, if allowed to, would have been able to suss this young man out. As you say there is no mention that they did meet but I would have thought it very likely that had they met and Elizabeth then had said no this is not my brother this would have been broadcast loud and clear. Why was it not done? Its crazy...Weasle and whoever was advising him must have thought that it was a possibility.
>
> And what of Elizabeth herself...what did she think? Was she at all curious...Whatever her thoughts were on the repercussions she must have wondered....Did she ask? Did she kick up a fuss...?

Mary said:


<Some years ago there was a very good article in the Ricardian about Edward supposedly being in Ireland just before Stoke and being crowned there. I can't remember who <wrote it and all my old Ricardians are packed away since I moved. Perhaps someone else will remember it but I remember being quite intrigued at the time.


Was that "Lambert Simnel and the King from Ireland"?  I have an idea it was written by John Ashdown-Hill but am probably totally wrong.

For me the whole Simnel thing is utterly bizarre and the idea that Edward was really the claimant would make sense.  Why on earth would Lincoln risk everything for a patently fake claimant?  Why would Eliz Woodville - if she was involved - do so?    As for the idea that it was Warwick, it could be deliberate misinformation afterwards or it could simply be confusion.  If people thought Edward V was dead and heard that the claimant was "Edward" they may have thought it meant Warwick when it didn't.

Of course we'll never know.

Maybe she didn't want to know - it would have been too horrendous.  IF he was her brother then she would have had the most appalling dilemma.  Maybe if it had happened before she had children she could have made a choice but to choose between your little brother and your own children?  I suspect she may well have just kept her head under the covers and waited for it all to go away so she didn't have to deal with it.
 
 
 
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 16:30
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter

 
It's so ludicrous....think about it...Someone is saying he is your young brother. It is of enormous importance....and yet....seemingly, you do not get to meet him. Im sure even after the lapse of time since she had last seen him, Elizabeth, if allowed to, would have been able to suss this young man out. As you say there is no mention that they did meet but I would have thought it very likely that had they met and Elizabeth then had said no this is not my brother this would have been broadcast loud and clear. Why was it not done? Its crazy...Weasle and whoever was advising him must have thought that it was a possibility.

And what of Elizabeth herself...what did she think? Was she at all curious...Whatever her thoughts were on the repercussions she must have wondered....Did she ask? Did she kick up a fuss...?

Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> There is apparently no evidence that they ever met, but they may have done. But certainly if Elizabeth had been asked to formally identify him as her brother or not, we would know about it.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie...do you think she was ever allowed to see Perkin....? Im pretty sure even after the lapse of time she would have been able to recognise him and if allowed to speak to him and importantly shoot him down in flames if he was a pretender. Looks as if, as far as we know, this was not allowed to happen....If not why? Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, she had children by that time. If Perkin was Elizabeth's brother, can you imagine the horror of that situation for her?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
> > > > that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
> > > > convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
> > > > loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:27:48 -0000
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
> > > > certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
> > > > he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to
> > > > depose her husband. Which neither of them did.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard
> > > > of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret
> > > > Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

There's nothing on tv tonight, I shall have to watch this
 
Thanks


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 18:42
Subject: Princes in the Tower Drama - Was "Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter"

 
There's a lovely 2005 "Princes in the Tower" costume drama on YouTube that has wonderful presentations of all the characters (though I have to warn that R3 appears for only a few seconds) in the Perkin W. story.

I found it entertaining, regardless it plays fast and loose with history. Elizabeth has a strong role in it (again against history), but her reactions -- and husband Henry's -- are a lot of fun to watch. Every character has his/her own moment, which I think is because of how the production was made "off leash", as it were. As the actor playing Perkin said:

"It was supposed to be a typical doco-drama," he says. "About a third of it was going to be talking heads, with the rest cobbled-together drama. The director, Justin Hardy, lived in France so we all went over for a couple of weeks and took over the dungeons of some chateau in the Dordogne, which was all very nice. But because Channel 4 weren't there to supervise us, we kind of mutinied.

"The writer was there with us [so] we actually made a full-length drama instead. Thankfully, Channel 4 really liked it, because it can be dangerous getting a load of actors together in a dungeon, fighting about how they want their scenes to go!"

Complete 2008 Interview with Mark Umbers (Perkin) here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/secrets-of-the-tower-unlocked/2008/12/20/1229189941812.html

Video here:
Part I: http://youtu.be/cFv_kcJyhNE
Part II: http://youtu.be/UCUttQzvHqk

There's also a "highly fictional documentary" here: http://youtu.be/8mM_BKT5mtQ
but I've not had time to watch it yet. It's two hours long.

~Wednesday

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> It's so ludicrous....think about it...Someone is saying he is your young brother. It is of enormous importance....and yet....seemingly, you do not get to meet him. Im sure even after the lapse of time since she had last seen him, Elizabeth, if allowed to, would have been able to suss this young man out. As you say there is no mention that they did meet but I would have thought it very likely that had they met and Elizabeth then had said no this is not my brother this would have been broadcast loud and clear. Why was it not done? Its crazy...Weasle and whoever was advising him must have thought that it was a possibility.
>
> And what of Elizabeth herself...what did she think? Was she at all curious...Whatever her thoughts were on the repercussions she must have wondered....Did she ask? Did she kick up a fuss...?

And for Henry VII, there would have been a risk, assuming there was any doubt about the matter at all. He had not much to gain and lots to lose, so better to keep them separated! Which suggests to me at least the possibility . . .



And all that reaffirms that Henry really didn't know what had happened to the boys.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter





Maybe she didn't want to know - it would have been too horrendous. IF he was her brother then she would have had the most appalling dilemma. Maybe if it had happened before she had children she could have made a choice but to choose between your little brother and your own children? I suspect she may well have just kept her head under the covers and waited for it all to go away so she didn't have to deal with it.



From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 16:30
Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter


It's so ludicrous....think about it...Someone is saying he is your young brother. It is of enormous importance....and yet....seemingly, you do not get to meet him. Im sure even after the lapse of time since she had last seen him, Elizabeth, if allowed to, would have been able to suss this young man out. As you say there is no mention that they did meet but I would have thought it very likely that had they met and Elizabeth then had said no this is not my brother this would have been broadcast loud and clear. Why was it not done? Its crazy...Weasle and whoever was advising him must have thought that it was a possibility.

And what of Elizabeth herself...what did she think? Was she at all curious...Whatever her thoughts were on the repercussions she must have wondered....Did she ask? Did she kick up a fuss...?

Eileen


· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNzdvbnBoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTI4MzcxODE-?o=6> New Members 1

· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZ3Y4aWlnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTI4MzcxODE-> New Photos 7

· <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnNWdjZGY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMzUyODM3MTgx> New Files 1

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlazY1MjZ1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MjgzNzE4MQ--> Visit Your Group

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJka2N0ZzF2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUyODM3MTgx> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=18973/stime=1352837181/nc1=3848627/nc2=5008816/nc3=4025304>

Hi Liz...Well of course you have to take personalities into consideration don't you.....You would assume that she would have asked to have seen Perkin.....but I have always had the impression she was a bit downtrodden, to what extent though?

It would be interesting to know where Elizabeth was living....and whether Perkin was ever in the same building/town?

Another thought I had, is it a coincidence that Perkin was wheeled out only after the death of his supposed mother? I think it would have been a different story if Elizabeth Snr had still been alive. How could they have refused her a chance of taking a look at this young man who was saying he was her son? If there was deception going on it wouldnt have taken long to get it sorted.

Makes you wonder if Elizabeth Jnr suffered from nerves/stress etc.,

Eileen


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe she didn't want to know - it would have been too horrendous.  IF he was her brother then she would have had the most appalling dilemma.  Maybe if it had happened before she had children she could have made a choice but to choose between your little brother and your own children?  I suspect she may well have just kept her head under the covers and waited for it all to go away so she didn't have to deal with it.
>  
>  
>  
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 16:30
> Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
>
>  
> It's so ludicrous....think about it...Someone is saying he is your young brother. It is of enormous importance....and yet....seemingly, you do not get to meet him. Im sure even after the lapse of time since she had last seen him, Elizabeth, if allowed to, would have been able to suss this young man out. As you say there is no mention that they did meet but I would have thought it very likely that had they met and Elizabeth then had said no this is not my brother this would have been broadcast loud and clear. Why was it not done? Its crazy...Weasle and whoever was advising him must have thought that it was a possibility.
>
> And what of Elizabeth herself...what did she think? Was she at all curious...Whatever her thoughts were on the repercussions she must have wondered....Did she ask? Did she kick up a fuss...?
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is apparently no evidence that they ever met, but they may have done. But certainly if Elizabeth had been asked to formally identify him as her brother or not, we would know about it.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie...do you think she was ever allowed to see Perkin....? Im pretty sure even after the lapse of time she would have been able to recognise him and if allowed to speak to him and importantly shoot him down in flames if he was a pretender. Looks as if, as far as we know, this was not allowed to happen....If not why? Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, she had children by that time. If Perkin was Elizabeth's brother, can you imagine the horror of that situation for her?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret may have believed, or convinced herself, that he was. I recognise
> > > > > that many people accept that Perkin was who he claimed to be. I'm not at all
> > > > > convinced. I guess, whether he was or not, Elizabeth showed where her
> > > > > loyalties lay by remaining silent on the matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:27:48 -0000
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's clear from Henry's reaction to Perkin Warbeck that he didn't know for
> > > > > certain that the princes were dead. <snip>
> > > > > he gamble being that either one of them could resurface and attempt to
> > > > > depose her husband. Which neither of them did.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless, of course, Perkin Warbeck was really who he claimed to be, Richard
> > > > > of York, who certainly did attempt to depose Henry (with help from Margaret
> > > > > Duchess of Burgundy, who called him her nephew).
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The article was by Gordon Smith, 'Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin'.  It's also on the Society website, look under Wars of the Roses, then Online Library of Essays and Articles.



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)


 
I've always thought that Eileen. It wouldn't make sense would it? Richard had made John de la Pole his heir so if the Princes were dead why wasn't he fighting the battle for himself not for an imposter. I suppose that if Edward or Richard were at Stoke they could have been spirited away after the Battle and "Lambert Simnel" left in their place. There was a discussion on here a while back about Frances Lovel escaping after Stoke he could have taken Edward or Richard with him. Also another thought is that Mr Tydder wouldn't want to admit that one of the Princes had been killed at Stoke ( if one of them was) so the story about Lambert Simnel could have been his get out clause.

Some years ago there was a very good article in the Ricardian about Edward supposedly being in Ireland just before Stoke and being crowned there. I can't remember who wrote it and all my old Ricardians are packed away since I moved. Perhaps someone else will remember it but I remember being quite intrigued at the time.

Mary

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
>
> Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
>
>
> > Hi, Stephen -
> >
> > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> >
> >
> >
> > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > adds to my confusion!
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Johanne Tournier
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> >
> > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> >
> > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> >
> >
> >
> > [JLT] <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thank you Dorothea......Eileen

--- In , Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:
>
> The article was by Gordon Smith, 'Lambert Simnel and the King from Dublin'.  It's also on the Society website, look under Wars of the Roses, then Online Library of Essays and Articles.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 1:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
>
>
>  
> I've always thought that Eileen. It wouldn't make sense would it? Richard had made John de la Pole his heir so if the Princes were dead why wasn't he fighting the battle for himself not for an imposter. I suppose that if Edward or Richard were at Stoke they could have been spirited away after the Battle and "Lambert Simnel" left in their place. There was a discussion on here a while back about Frances Lovel escaping after Stoke he could have taken Edward or Richard with him. Also another thought is that Mr Tydder wouldn't want to admit that one of the Princes had been killed at Stoke ( if one of them was) so the story about Lambert Simnel could have been his get out clause.
>
> Some years ago there was a very good article in the Ricardian about Edward supposedly being in Ireland just before Stoke and being crowned there. I can't remember who wrote it and all my old Ricardians are packed away since I moved. Perhaps someone else will remember it but I remember being quite intrigued at the time.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
> >
> > Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
> >
> >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > > adds to my confusion!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Johanne Tournier
> > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> > >
> > > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [JLT] <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Marie...again...you have pointed something out I did not know...Rows you say!....that is extraordinary....This has gone down in history as fact and yet it comes from someone who known to be a lier. Still I suppose this time his intentions were more honourable if he was indeed trying to get poor Warwick released....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> We've only got Rows' word for it that Lincoln was chosen by Richard as his heir, and even he says he initially picked Warwick, then locked him up and chose Lincoln instead. At the time, of course, he was probably trying to persuade Henry VII he was not a real threat so he would release him from the Tower.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie..OK...but could Lincoln have known at the time there was a surviving prince...I find it odd that as Lincoln had been named by Richard as his heir he would be fighting to put young Warwick on the throne as Richard had changed his about him, Warwick, possibly because he was not up to the job and maybe some kind of mental deficiency...
> >
> > I would have thought it imperative to the Yorkist cause, that their candidate for the throne should be strong and of sufficient age to be able rule...Surely young Warwick was not an ideal candidate...
> >
> > ps...How different things would have turned out for this young man if the Yorkists had overthrown Weasle...poor thing...Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It's a fair point about Lincoln, except that he was putting his life on the line for the Earl of Warwick. He was no longer alive when Perkin surfaced.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders of the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an imposter? Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
> > > >
> > > > Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how horrendous that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and with his face beaten to a pulp.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Stephen -
> > > > >
> > > > > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of Shrewsbury"
> > > > > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > > > > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is not
> > > > > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not to
> > > > > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > > > > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > > > > adds to my confusion!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > >
> > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From:
> > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > > > > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > > > > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Johanne Tournier
> > > > > To:
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > > > > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > > > > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > > > > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [JLT] <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi All
I've introduced a change of name as I can't locate the actual part of the thread this alludes to. What is telling about Elizabeth of York is how pliant she appears to be to events as they unfold which has affected her reputation and how she has been perceived subsequently. Hers is definitely a silent voice of history, waiting to be heard/uncovered in some capacity. I read a book a few months ago by Philippa Jones called The Other Tudors: Henry VIII's Mistresses and Bastards, where the author suggests that Henry VIII idolised his mother and was always trying to replace her in his choice of wife/wives. This suggests that she had a greater impact on his life than has been previously thought. And also that there may have been a strong bond between them; they were both marginalised at least until Arthur died. Henry was never expected to become king and as such received an education unlike that given to Arthur who was always aware of his destiny. Henry was most probably expected to go into the Church - what a thought! After Arthur's death, Elizabeth became pregnant and subsequently died, If you think about it psychologically, what effect did this have on Henry. In relation to Elizabeth's relationship with Henry Tudor, she was the third individual in the relationship, to paraphrase Diana, Princess of Wales. Henry's relationship with his mother being the primary one, which was unusual in this case, in that they been forced to live apart and had actually not seen each other for many years. But Henry had issues trusting anyone. Margaret Beaufort was in effect the Queen Consort. Elizabeth was not even allowed to choose the decorations for the nursery. Margaret Beaufort choose these. So in effect, Elizabeth's silence could speak volumes.

Someone on here also mentioned that Henry did not choose to remarry after Elizabeth's death as some sort of proof of an affection between them. In fact, Henry was contemplating marriage with Margaret of Angouleme, sister of the French heir to the throne, as part of his foreign policy with France although it came to nothing. He also contemplated marrying Catherine of Aragon himself after the death of Arthur rather than her marrying his son, Henry. One of the major reasons for keeping Catherine in England being that he would not have to return her dowry. In the period between her marriages she was treated extremely shabbily and lived in very straightened circumstances due to Henry's meanness in monetary terms and meanness of spirit.
Elaine

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> I'm cross-posting this from the Facebook entry by Sharon Kay Penman (The Sunne in Splendor and many other wonderful novels about Medieval times and people:
>
>
> "On November 10, 1480, Bridget, the youngest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was born. She was sent to Dartford Priory to become a nun in 1487 at the painfully young age of seven years. When I was checking her birth date on Wikipedia, I discovered something fascinating, something that was definitely not known when I wrote Sunne three decades ago. Apparently Bridget was a reluctant nun, for she may have had an illegitimate daughter in 1498, Agnes of Eltham. I know Wikipedia can be hit or miss, but they do cite a new history of the Plantagenets as the source. As I've often explained, I could not keep up on Ricardian research if I wanted to write other novels. Anyone who is more current on Ricardiana than me know anything about Bridget and Agnes? We certainly know there were many unwilling nuns in the MA, girls sequestered at an early age like Bridget or Gwenllian, others compelled by family to take vows to in squabbles over inheritances, some who were compelled by circumstances or sudden poverty. The histories mention runaway nuns. This case seems unusual in that if it is true, Bridget had her baby while still a nun and continued to remain a nun until her death. Being a king's daughter and the sister of Elizabeth of York probably played a role in her more lenient treatment. But wouldn't we love to know more about all this?"
>
>
> I didn't know this. Very interesting. I think I read ("somewhere" as usual) that she was mentally deficient. That could account for her being allowed to continue as a nun after having had an illegitimate child, if it was felt that she had not willingly or maybe even knowingly committed adultery.
>
> Katy
>

"except that [Lincoln] was putting his life on the line for the Earl of
Warwick"

You might need to explain your comment.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:19:49 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)







You still have some work to do on this period, then.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Except Lambert Simnel was supposedly the young Earl of Warwick, who everyone
> knew was both alive and in the Tower.
>
> Karen
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:07:19 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've always thought that Eileen. It wouldn't make sense would it? Richard
> had made John de la Pole his heir so if the Princes were dead why wasn't he
> fighting the battle for himself not for an imposter. I suppose that if
> Edward or Richard were at Stoke they could have been spirited away after the
> Battle and "Lambert Simnel" left in their place. There was a discussion on
> here a while back about Frances Lovel escaping after Stoke he could have
> taken Edward or Richard with him. Also another thought is that Mr Tydder
> wouldn't want to admit that one of the Princes had been killed at Stoke ( if
> one of them was) so the story about Lambert Simnel could have been his get
> out clause.
>
> Some years ago there was a very good article in the Ricardian about Edward
> supposedly being in Ireland just before Stoke and being crowned there. I
> can't remember who wrote it and all my old Ricardians are packed away since
> I moved. Perhaps someone else will remember it but I remember being quite
> intrigued at the time.
>
> Mary
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, noone knows the truth behind Perkin...But obviously the leaders
of
> the Yorkists...John de la Pole et al... and Margaret of Burgundy did. Would
> Lincoln have put his life on the line for an imposter and would Margaret of
> Burgundy wanted a Yorkist imposter wearing sitting on the throne even for the
> sake of getting rid of Weasle. Was the battle of Stoke fought for an
imposter?
> Why just not put forward Lincoln, as Richard's legal heir as claimant to the
> throne especially if they knew that both the princes were dead. This makes me
> think that there was a fairly good chance one of the boys was alive...
> >
> > Going back to Perkin...if he was indeed Richard of Shrewsbury...how
horrendous
> that he ended up the way he did, drawn to the scaffold on a hurdle, hung and
> with his face beaten to a pulp.
> >
> >
> > > Hi, Stephen -
> > >
> > > OK - so I presume the young Richard Duke of York is "Richard of
Shrewsbury"
> > > to you? Then how do you refer to his older brother Edward? (I am not aware
> > > of these boys' birthplaces, obviously.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One of the biggest problems I've had mastering the history of the era is
not
> > > only the number of redundant Richards, Georges, Henrys, and Edwards (not
to
> > > mention the ladies' names) but the fact that commentators on the era don't
> > > all agree on how the historic characters should be described. It certainly
> > > adds to my confusion!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE:
> > > Sharon Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I refer to Edward IV's sons by their birthplaces as there were so many
> > > Edwards and Richards (Georges and Henries too) around.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Johanne Tournier
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:10 AM
> > > Subject: Perkin Warbeck, cont. (was RE: Sharon
> > > Penman on E IV's daughter)
> > >
> > > Hi, Stephen, Carol, & Everyone -
> > >
> > > Stephen, what did you mean about your last sentence? Who or what is
> > > "Shrewsbury" in this context?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [JLT] <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>