Which book?

"Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, … that he considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid dispensation to bring it to an end … Quite what would have befallen his ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her – a charge that he explicitly denied on 30 March. … There is no reason to doubt Richard's declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. … Anne cannot, however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have been sad indeed."

This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:

http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-and-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/

Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?

Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.

As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.

In sum, highly unlikely.

Brian W

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, … that he considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid dispensation to bring it to an end … Quite what would have befallen his ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her – a charge that he explicitly denied on 30 March. … There is no reason to doubt Richard's declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. … Anne cannot, however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have been sad indeed."
>
> This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
>
> http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-and-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
>
> Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
>

Hi, Brian & Ishita -



It's good to discuss these things. At the least it's interesting to know
what's out there. I agree with your conclusions, Brian. I suppose if it
really transpired, had Anne not died, that she was unable to bear future
children, the way might have been found for an annulment. If an annulment
could not be obtained, I don't think Richard was about to lead the
Reformation in Britain. In other words, I don't believe he would have sought
to divorce Anne. Unlike Fat Harry, I think he would have been more likely to
accept his fate as God's will and have made his choices from among those
that were religiously acceptable. Perhaps an annulment would have been
available, perhaps not. There were other monarchs who didn't have progeny,
were there not? Richard could have done what he is alleged to have done
after Anne's death and named another close relative as his heir.



I would be interested to know more about where Hicks wrote this and what his
sources are. Does anyone know anything about contemporary rumours that
Richard was going to divorce Anne or get the marriage annulled?



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 Brian
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 4:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?





Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.

As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.

In sum, highly unlikely.

Brian W

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...>
wrote:
>
> "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent
title to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, . that
he considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring
him an heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all,
that his marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of
a valid dispensation to bring it to an end . Quite what would have befallen
his ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No
divorce was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March
1485. So convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her -
a charge that he explicitly denied on 30 March. . There is no reason to
doubt Richard's declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political
expediency and self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. .
Anne cannot, however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last
year must have been sad indeed."
>
> This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
>
>
http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiabl
e-and-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
>
> Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
>

Yep.

Karen

From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Which book?






Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.

As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.

In sum, highly unlikely.

Brian W

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...>
wrote:
>
> "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
been sad indeed."
>
> This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
>
>
http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
>
> Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
>

I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
Ishita

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yep.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
>
> As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
>
> In sum, highly unlikely.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> wrote:
> >
> > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> been sad indeed."
> >
> > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> >
> >
> http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> >
> > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act of
parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill. (The
same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of the
reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.There's nothing to
support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to Anne
annulled.

There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard 'looking
bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been seen
as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second point,
which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those two
things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more practical
than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
seeking an annulment or a divorce.

Karem

From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:42:09 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Which book?






I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about
these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence?
It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
Ishita

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Yep.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
>
> As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
>
> In sum, highly unlikely.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> wrote:
> >
> > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No
divorce
> was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> been sad indeed."
> >
> > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> >
> >
>
http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> >
> > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Practical perhaps but heartless nevertheless if he indeed put her aside.
Could he not have legitimize John of Gloucester ? It seems people could be bastardized at will of the kings so why not legalize a child of his body?
It is a good thing I wasn't around in the 15 th century. I would be raving mad!!!

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

On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

> Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act of
> parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill. (The
> same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of the
> reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
> interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
> misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
> dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.There's nothing to
> support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to Anne
> annulled.
>
> There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard 'looking
> bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
> remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
> Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been seen
> as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second point,
> which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
> whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those two
> things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more practical
> than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
> seeking an annulment or a divorce.
>
> Karem
>
> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:42:09 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
> I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about
> these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence?
> It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> Ishita
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@...>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> >
> > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> >
> > In sum, highly unlikely.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No
> divorce
> > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > been sad indeed."
> > >
> > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > >
> > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I've heard / read people asking this before.

How would that have worked?

He took the throne because his brother's children had been declared illegitimate and then he goes and legitimates his own son born out of wedlock to make him his heir?

That would really have made Richard the hypocrite that he has often been accused of being.


--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Practical perhaps but heartless nevertheless if he indeed put her aside.
> Could he not have legitimize John of Gloucester ? It seems people could be bastardized at will of the kings so why not legalize a child of his body?
> It is a good thing I wasn't around in the 15 th century. I would be raving mad!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> > Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act of
> > parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill. (The
> > same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of the
> > reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
> > interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
> > misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
> > dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.There's nothing to
> > support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to Anne
> > annulled.
> >
> > There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard 'looking
> > bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
> > remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
> > Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been seen
> > as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second point,
> > which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
> > whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those two
> > things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more practical
> > than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
> > seeking an annulment or a divorce.
> >
> > Karem
> >
>

Hi, Katherine -

I read not too long ago that when he appointed John of Gloucester to the
position of Captain of Calais, Richard emphasized John's bastard status for
precisely that reason - to show that he would not consider naming John as
his heir.



As Richard tended to be up-front and do things legally by the book and not
be hypocritical. Imho, 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
highland_katherine
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 1:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?





I've heard / read people asking this before.

How would that have worked?

He took the throne because his brother's children had been declared
illegitimate and then he goes and legitimates his own son born out of
wedlock to make him his heir?

That would really have made Richard the hypocrite that he has often been
accused of being.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Richard Yahoo
<bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Practical perhaps but heartless nevertheless if he indeed put her aside.
> Could he not have legitimize John of Gloucester ? It seems people could be
bastardized at will of the kings so why not legalize a child of his body?
> It is a good thing I wasn't around in the 15 th century. I would be raving
mad!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> > Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act
of
> > parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill.
(The
> > same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of
the
> > reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
> > interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
> > misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
> > dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.There's nothing
to
> > support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to
Anne
> > annulled.
> >
> > There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard
'looking
> > bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
> > remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
> > Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been
seen
> > as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second
point,
> > which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
> > whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those
two
> > things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more
practical
> > than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
> > seeking an annulment or a divorce.
> >
> > Karem
> >
>

Hmm! You are right.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:50 PM, "highland_katherine" <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:

> I've heard / read people asking this before.
>
> How would that have worked?
>
> He took the throne because his brother's children had been declared illegitimate and then he goes and legitimates his own son born out of wedlock to make him his heir?
>
> That would really have made Richard the hypocrite that he has often been accused of being.
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Practical perhaps but heartless nevertheless if he indeed put her aside.
> > Could he not have legitimize John of Gloucester ? It seems people could be bastardized at will of the kings so why not legalize a child of his body?
> > It is a good thing I wasn't around in the 15 th century. I would be raving mad!!!
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act of
> > > parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill. (The
> > > same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of the
> > > reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
> > > interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
> > > misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
> > > dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.There's nothing to
> > > support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to Anne
> > > annulled.
> > >
> > > There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard 'looking
> > > bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
> > > remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
> > > Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been seen
> > > as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second point,
> > > which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
> > > whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those two
> > > things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more practical
> > > than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
> > > seeking an annulment or a divorce.
> > >
> > > Karem
> > >
> >
>
>

Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
Marie




--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> Ishita
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> >
> > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> >
> > In sum, highly unlikely.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > been sad indeed."
> > >
> > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > >
> > >
> > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > >
> > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act of
> parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill. (The
> same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of the
> reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
> interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
> misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
> dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.

Well, we're still missing the main odispensation but it looks as though Richard and Anne weren't, if you see what I mean.
Marie



There's nothing to
> support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to Anne
> annulled.
>
> There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard 'looking
> bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
> remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
> Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been seen
> as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second point,
> which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
> whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those two
> things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more practical
> than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
> seeking an annulment or a divorce.
>
> Karem
>
> From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:42:09 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about
> these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence?
> It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> Ishita
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> >
> > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> >
> > In sum, highly unlikely.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No
> divorce
> > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > been sad indeed."
> > >
> > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > >
> > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Madge Beaufort???

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
> And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> > What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> > Ishita
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Re: Which book?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> > >
> > > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> > >
> > > In sum, highly unlikely.
> > >
> > > Brian W
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > > been sad indeed."
> > > >
> > > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > > >
> > > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

My feeling is that Richard's religious beliefs would have kicked in. Provided he was happy about the validity of his marriage (and I don't see why he shouldn't have been if George's cry of force! had been the only objection) then I suspect he would have left it all to God's will. Anne was young - there was still an opportunity for more children. Marianne may well be right and that Anne died from complications of pregnancy. If so, it would certainly mean that Richard would not have had any thought of divorcing her before she became ill. And once it was clear she was dying then divorce would have been superfluous.
Marie

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Practical perhaps but heartless nevertheless if he indeed put her aside.
> Could he not have legitimize John of Gloucester ? It seems people could be bastardized at will of the kings so why not legalize a child of his body?
> It is a good thing I wasn't around in the 15 th century. I would be raving mad!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> > Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act of
> > parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill. (The
> > same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of the
> > reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
> > interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
> > misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
> > dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.There's nothing to
> > support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to Anne
> > annulled.
> >
> > There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard 'looking
> > bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
> > remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
> > Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been seen
> > as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second point,
> > which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
> > whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those two
> > things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more practical
> > than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
> > seeking an annulment or a divorce.
> >
> > Karem
> >
> > From: bandyoi <bandyoi@...>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:42:09 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> > I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about
> > these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence?
> > It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> > What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> > Ishita
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > > Reply-To: <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > > To: <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Subject: Re: Which book?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> > >
> > > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> > >
> > > In sum, highly unlikely.
> > >
> > > Brian W
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No
> > divorce
> > > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > > been sad indeed."
> > > >
> > > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > > >
> > > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Ten out of ten.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Madge Beaufort???
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
> > And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> > > What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yep.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > > > Reply-To: <>
> > > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > > > To: <>
> > > > Subject: Re: Which book?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > > > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> > > >
> > > > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > > > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > > > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> > > >
> > > > In sum, highly unlikely.
> > > >
> > > > Brian W
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > > > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > > > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > > > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > > > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > > > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > > > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > > > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > > > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > > > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > > > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > > > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > > > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > > > been sad indeed."
> > > > >
> > > > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > > > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > > > >
> > > > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Oops - there goes Hicks' vendetta against Richard AGAIN.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Which book?




Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
Marie

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> Ishita
>
> --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > To: <>
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> >
> > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> >
> > In sum, highly unlikely.
> >
> > Brian W
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > been sad indeed."
> > >
> > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > >
> > >
> > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > >
> > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

That is outrageous...that woman.....honestly I dont know what to say...! Hey...you dont think that Morton was the Crowland Chronicler...its never been proven absolutely who it was.....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Ten out of ten.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Madge Beaufort???
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
> > > And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> > > > What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > > > > To: <>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Which book?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > > > > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > > > > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > > > > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> > > > >
> > > > > In sum, highly unlikely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian W
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > > > > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > > > > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > > > > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > > > > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > > > > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > > > > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > > > > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > > > > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > > > > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > > > > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > > > > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > > > > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > > > > been sad indeed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > > > > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hicks, Starkey...they both seem to hate Richard...This is a bad show for historians because it means that they are telling things from their perception....instead of being neutral...Eileen

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Oops - there goes Hicks' vendetta against Richard AGAIN.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
> Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
> And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> Marie
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> > What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> > Ishita
> >
> > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > > Reply-To: <>
> > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > > To: <>
> > > Subject: Re: Which book?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> > >
> > > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> > >
> > > In sum, highly unlikely.
> > >
> > > Brian W
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > > been sad indeed."
> > > >
> > > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > > >
> > > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> Marie




Um...who? (She said, in a surfeit of ignorance.)

Katy

Am I allowed to swear on this forum...No..well then I will leave it to your imaginations as to what I think about this....It absolutely sucks...Eileen

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> > Marie
>
>
>
>
> Um...who? (She said, in a surfeit of ignorance.)
>
> Katy
>

Katy...I never knew.....duh! Eileen
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> > Marie
>
>
>
>
> Um...who? (She said, in a surfeit of ignorance.)
>
> Katy
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
Marianne may well be right and that Anne died from complications of pregnancy. If so, it would certainly mean that Richard would not have had any thought of divorcing her before she became ill. And once it was clear she was dying then divorce would have been superfluous.
> Marie



I had the same thought. A miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy could fit nicely with the fact that a woman who was dancing and making multiple changes of wardrobe at Christmas could be dead a couple of months later.

Katy

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> That is outrageous...that woman.....honestly I dont know what to say...! Hey...you dont think that Morton was the Crowland Chronicler...its never been proven absolutely who it was.....Eileen

No, generally the perspective is not consistent with Morton's movements, although it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he stopped that way after Buckingham's Rebellion and provided some of the intriguingly detailed information on the doings around Brecon; Vergil says he made for the Fens before fleeing abroad.
Marie



>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Ten out of ten.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Madge Beaufort???
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
> > > > And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> > > > > What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> > > > > Ishita
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Karen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > > > > > Reply-To: <>
> > > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Which book?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > > > > > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > > > > > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > > > > > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In sum, highly unlikely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brian W
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > > > > > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > > > > > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > > > > > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > > > > > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > > > > > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > > > > > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > > > > > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > > > > > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > > > > > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > > > > > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > > > > > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > > > > > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > > > > > been sad indeed."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > > > > > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

If Richard had legitimised John of Gloucester, after having his brother's
sons declared illegitimate, he'd have lost every last shred of credibility,
then and now.

Karen

From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:28:48 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?






Practical perhaps but heartless nevertheless if he indeed put her aside.
Could he not have legitimize John of Gloucester ? It seems people could be
bastardized at will of the kings so why not legalize a child of his body?
It is a good thing I wasn't around in the 15 th century. I would be raving
mad!!!

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

On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

> Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act of
> parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill. (The
> same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of the
> reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
> interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
> misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
> dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.There's nothing to
> support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to Anne
> annulled.
>
> There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard 'looking
> bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
> remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
> Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been seen
> as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second point,
> which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
> whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those two
> things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more practical
> than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
> seeking an annulment or a divorce.
>
> Karem

Hi Johanne, Absolutely. I am as sure as anyone can be that Richard would not have contemplated John of Gloucester as his heir.

However,this is the third time in as many weeks that I have heard someone wondering why he didn't. As an option, it was clearly a non-starter.



--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Katherine -
>
> I read not too long ago that when he appointed John of Gloucester to the
> position of Captain of Calais, Richard emphasized John's bastard status for
> precisely that reason - to show that he would not consider naming John as
> his heir.
>
>
>
> As Richard tended to be up-front and do things legally by the book and not
> be hypocritical. Imho, of course.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On the other hand, the William the Conquerer who founded French rule in England was illegitimate, and the Tudor claim was through a "legitimized" line. Henry VIII tried to have his illegitimate son declare heir to the throne, and the Duke of Monmouth made a serious bid to seize the throne from his uncle James. Athelstan, Emperor of Britain, may well have been born out of marriage.
Half the hereditary members of the House of Lords are descended from one of Charles II's mistresses.
As we saw in the case of the Nevilles, Ralph of Westmorland disinherited the children of his first marriage to the daughter of the Earl of Stafford in favour of those from Joan Beaufort; evidently Royal blood often counted for rather more legitimacy. 


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2012, 23:31
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?


 
If Richard had legitimised John of Gloucester, after having his brother's
sons declared illegitimate, he'd have lost every last shred of credibility,
then and now.

Karen

From: Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:28:48 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?

Practical perhaps but heartless nevertheless if he indeed put her aside.
Could he not have legitimize John of Gloucester ? It seems people could be
bastardized at will of the kings so why not legalize a child of his body?
It is a good thing I wasn't around in the 15 th century. I would be raving
mad!!!

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

On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:

> Ishita, it seems to be a misreading of the 'divorce' clause in the act of
> parliament that dealt with the 'inheritance' of Isobel and Anne Nevill. (The
> same thing that Philippa Gregory seems to have misread.) This is one of the
> reasons I'd love to know what editorial decisions were made (editorial
> interference, perhaps?) as it would surprise me greatly if Hicks had
> misunderstood it himself. The other aspect to it is the missing papal
> dispensations that no longer seem to be actually missing.There's nothing to
> support the notion that Richard was planning to have his marriage to Anne
> annulled.
>
> There are a couple of things to consider, though, regarding Richard 'looking
> bad'. If there was any doubt as to the validity of the marriage, and
> remembering that Richard had used doubts over Edward IV's marriage to
> Elizabeth Wydeville to set aside his nephews, then he could have been seen
> as hypocritical not to act on it. Especially bearing in my the second point,
> which is that after the death of their son, Richard was a childless king
> whose reign, to that point, hadn't been the most secure. Putting those two
> things together, had Richard sought an annulment, he'd look more practical
> than 'bad' in my eyes. Again, though, there's no evidence that he was
> seeking an annulment or a divorce.
>
> Karem

Doesn't happen very often, though. ;-)


--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Hmm! You are right.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 22, 2012, at 12:50 PM, "highland_katherine" <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
> > I've heard / read people asking this before.
> >
> > How would that have worked?
> >
> > He took the throne because his brother's children had been declared illegitimate and then he goes and legitimates his own son born out of wedlock to make him his heir?
> >
> > That would really have made Richard the hypocrite that he has often been accused of being.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

OMG! Richard never had a chance, did he?? What a great propaganda machine he had working against him!!!


Ishita Bandyo

Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook

Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
  Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook     Like
  Get this email app!  
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours 
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Which book?


 
That is outrageous...that woman.....honestly I dont know what to say...! Hey...you dont think that Morton was the Crowland Chronicler...its never been proven absolutely who it was.....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Ten out of ten.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Madge Beaufort???
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
> > > And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> > > > What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep.
> > > > >
> > > > > Karen
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > > > > Reply-To: <>
> > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > > > > To: <>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Which book?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > > > > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > > > > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > > > > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> > > > >
> > > > > In sum, highly unlikely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian W
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > > > > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > > > > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > > > > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > > > > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > > > > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > > > > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > > > > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > > > > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > > > > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > > > > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > > > > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > > > > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > > > > been sad indeed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > > > > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Ah, the grand conspiracy that began with Edward IV's death, 'Mag the Hag'
lurking behind it all. Margaret Beaufort is so very seriously demonised by
some that every little things she did can be fit into that 'propaganda
machine' or that mindbogglingly complex and grand conspiracy. I imagine it's
quite easy to be caught up in it all, If one isn't careful. It's a view of
!Victim Richard that I just can't buy into.

Karen

From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:59:22 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?






OMG! Richard never had a chance, did he?? What a great propaganda machine he
had working against him!!!

Ishita Bandyo

Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook

Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly!
Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook Like
Get this email app!
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours

highland_katherine wrote:

//snip//
"He took the throne because his brother's children had been declared
illegitimate and then he goes and legitimates his own son born out of
wedlock to make him his heir?
That would really have made Richard the hypocrite that he has often been
accused of being."

Could Richard have, literally, adopted Edward's children and legitimized
that way?
My presumption being that such an action would have taken place AFTER Anne's
death, Richard's marriage to Joanna with no chldren resulting from Richard's
second marriage.
Completely "what if" of course, as de la Pole and Warwick were on hand as
legitimate heirs, but were there any such examples that could have been used
in support of an adoption?
And, most importantly, would such an adoption, if it was possible and had
occurred, have been accepted?
Doug

Doug, I don't know if this would have been possible. It sounds definitely dodgy to me but I am no expert.

I would say he couldn't have legally done this but I will await correction.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> highland_katherine wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "He took the throne because his brother's children had been declared
> illegitimate and then he goes and legitimates his own son born out of
> wedlock to make him his heir?
> That would really have made Richard the hypocrite that he has often been
> accused of being."
>
> Could Richard have, literally, adopted Edward's children and legitimized
> that way?
> My presumption being that such an action would have taken place AFTER Anne's
> death, Richard's marriage to Joanna with no chldren resulting from Richard's
> second marriage.
> Completely "what if" of course, as de la Pole and Warwick were on hand as
> legitimate heirs, but were there any such examples that could have been used
> in support of an adoption?
> And, most importantly, would such an adoption, if it was possible and had
> occurred, have been accepted?
> Doug
>

Karen Clark wrote:

"Ah, the grand conspiracy that began with Edward IV's death, 'Mag the Hag'
lurking behind it all. Margaret Beaufort is so very seriously demonised by
some that every little things she did can be fit into that 'propaganda
machine' or that mindbogglingly complex and grand conspiracy. I imagine it's
quite easy to be caught up in it all, If one isn't careful. It's a view of
!Victim Richard that I just can't buy into."

Trouble is, Margaret Beaufort DOES seem to do an awful lot of "lurking",
though doesn't she? Either she was directly involved in Buckingham's
Rebellion or else had no control over those in her direct employ. Her
husband was involved in at least one plot against Richard. Her son refused
all offers to be allowed to legally return to England, preferring to remain
in France, or rather, Normandy.
It's entirely possible ALL that occurred without Margaret's knowledge, but
if so wouldn't that have made her more of a pawn rather than an independent
actor (sorry, I just couldn't resist!)?
There's also the question of how Richard viewed the actions of a married
woman, as opposed to an unmarried woman. Did he view a married woman as
being somehow less "responsible" for her actions since a husband was,
supposedly, in control of the household and responsible for the actions of
its' members? If so, that would give a "lurker" a lot of room for action.
I'd look at Richard's actions against Margaret, and her actions against
Richard, as showing less that Richard was a "victim" of her machianations
(I've always wanted to use that word!) and more a "victim" of his time and
the how women were perceived.
Doug

A thought just occurred to me: is anything available that would allow me to
compare the actions of Cecily, Duchess of York in regards to HER son/s with
those of Margaret Beaufort? Are there any noncommittal biographies of either
woman?
Doug

I agree - even under the 1925 family laws, adoption cannot qualify one for a title or crown and surely cannot in 1484-5.

----- Original Message -----
From: highland_katherine
To:
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: Which book?



Doug, I don't know if this would have been possible. It sounds definitely dodgy to me but I am no expert.

I would say he couldn't have legally done this but I will await correction.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> highland_katherine wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "He took the throne because his brother's children had been declared
> illegitimate and then he goes and legitimates his own son born out of
> wedlock to make him his heir?
> That would really have made Richard the hypocrite that he has often been
> accused of being."
>
> Could Richard have, literally, adopted Edward's children and legitimized
> that way?
> My presumption being that such an action would have taken place AFTER Anne's
> death, Richard's marriage to Joanna with no chldren resulting from Richard's
> second marriage.
> Completely "what if" of course, as de la Pole and Warwick were on hand as
> legitimate heirs, but were there any such examples that could have been used
> in support of an adoption?
> And, most importantly, would such an adoption, if it was possible and had
> occurred, have been accepted?
> Doug
>

Doug

I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her son's
(and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I pick
up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater degree
than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
some basis in reality.)

What I'm finding in my own research into the lives of the Nevill sisters and
wives is that some of them played more of a part in the business of their
husbands (and brothers) than others. I'd put Margaret countess of Oxford,
the countesses of Salisbury and Warwick, Alice lady Fitzhugh and Maud lady
Willoughby in the 'more active' pile. Isobel Ingoldisthorpe, Katheryn lady
Hastings, Alianor lady Stanley and joan countess of Arundel would be in the
'less active, possibly not active at all' pile. As I get deeper into it,
this may change. Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort probably need a pile
all their own!

With the examples of his mother, aunt and a handful of female cousins,
Richard probably didn't assume women to be passive. Margaret B may have been
a 'lurker' but I just can't see her controlling events and plotting for her
son to take the throne right from the start.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:51:58 -0600
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?







Karen Clark wrote:

"Ah, the grand conspiracy that began with Edward IV's death, 'Mag the Hag'
lurking behind it all. Margaret Beaufort is so very seriously demonised by
some that every little things she did can be fit into that 'propaganda
machine' or that mindbogglingly complex and grand conspiracy. I imagine it's
quite easy to be caught up in it all, If one isn't careful. It's a view of
!Victim Richard that I just can't buy into."

Trouble is, Margaret Beaufort DOES seem to do an awful lot of "lurking",
though doesn't she? Either she was directly involved in Buckingham's
Rebellion or else had no control over those in her direct employ. Her
husband was involved in at least one plot against Richard. Her son refused
all offers to be allowed to legally return to England, preferring to remain
in France, or rather, Normandy.
It's entirely possible ALL that occurred without Margaret's knowledge, but
if so wouldn't that have made her more of a pawn rather than an independent
actor (sorry, I just couldn't resist!)?
There's also the question of how Richard viewed the actions of a married
woman, as opposed to an unmarried woman. Did he view a married woman as
being somehow less "responsible" for her actions since a husband was,
supposedly, in control of the household and responsible for the actions of
its' members? If so, that would give a "lurker" a lot of room for action.
I'd look at Richard's actions against Margaret, and her actions against
Richard, as showing less that Richard was a "victim" of her machianations
(I've always wanted to use that word!) and more a "victim" of his time and
the how women were perceived.
Doug

A thought just occurred to me: is anything available that would allow me to
compare the actions of Cecily, Duchess of York in regards to HER son/s with
those of Margaret Beaufort? Are there any noncommittal biographies of either
woman?
Doug

I'm glad you've confirmed that, Stephen. It was purely a gut feeling but lurking at the back of my mind were cases where people have adopted (usually) boys into their families and brought them up to inherit - like Frank Churchill in "Emma". These might have already been the heirs, though and had probably not been declared illegitimate previously.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I agree - even under the 1925 family laws, adoption cannot qualify one for a title or crown and surely cannot in 1484-5.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: highland_katherine
> To:
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
> Doug, I don't know if this would have been possible. It sounds definitely dodgy to me but I am no expert.
>
> I would say he couldn't have legally done this but I will await correction.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Doug
>
> I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her son's
> (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I pick
> up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater degree
> than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> some basis in reality.)
>


I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed for more.
I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no evidence.
Marie

I've not heard of a case like that in the Middle Ages. My thought is that no such adoptee would have inherited unchallenged in that violent world.
Marie


--- In , "highland_katherine" <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
>
> I'm glad you've confirmed that, Stephen. It was purely a gut feeling but lurking at the back of my mind were cases where people have adopted (usually) boys into their families and brought them up to inherit - like Frank Churchill in "Emma". These might have already been the heirs, though and had probably not been declared illegitimate previously.
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree - even under the 1925 family laws, adoption cannot qualify one for a title or crown and surely cannot in 1484-5.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: highland_katherine
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> > Doug, I don't know if this would have been possible. It sounds definitely dodgy to me but I am no expert.
> >
> > I would say he couldn't have legally done this but I will await correction.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi, All -

My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
(or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.



Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.



So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
for sure.



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 mariewalsh2003
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?







--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Doug
>
> I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
son's
> (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
pick
> up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
degree
> than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> some basis in reality.)
>

I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
for more.
I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
evidence.
Marie

Hicks = bastard feudal numbnuts.

PISS-ARSES ABOUT IN WINCHESTER.

(small LOL)

--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
>
> As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
>
> In sum, highly unlikely.
>
> Brian W
>
> --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, … that he considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid dispensation to bring it to an end … Quite what would have befallen his ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her – a charge that he explicitly denied on 30 March. … There is no reason to doubt Richard's declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. … Anne cannot, however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have been sad indeed."
> >
> > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> >
> > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-and-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> >
> > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> >
>

Hi Johanne,

Yes, that's actually true. No "Mag the Hag" here and certainly no recent attempts on the forum to pin the murders of the Princes on Margaret Beaufort (although such theories have been published).

Marie




--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All -
>
> My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
> the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
> recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
> (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
> was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
> Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.
>
>
>
> Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
> operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
> used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
> necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
> Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
> hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.
>
>
>
> So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
> Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
> about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
> for sure.
>
>
>
> 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 mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
> son's
> > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
> pick
> > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> > thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
> degree
> > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> > some basis in reality.)
> >
>
> I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
> Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
> child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
> opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
> Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
> and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
> her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
> for more.
> I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
> just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
> evidence.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ok Marie...I have noticed that Ely is only about 30 miles or so from Croyland....I wonder if Morton took shelter in either of these places when he was fleeing to France..Eileen


> No, generally the perspective is not consistent with Morton's movements, although it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he stopped that way after Buckingham's Rebellion and provided some of the intriguingly detailed information on the doings around Brecon; Vergil says he made for the Fens before fleeing abroad.
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ten out of ten.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Madge Beaufort???
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Crowland says Richard believed he had sufficient grounds for divorcing Anne, but that is not quite the same as saying he planned to divorce her; Crowland, of course, believed Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York. I wouldn't give you tuppence for Crowland's opinions - he also tells us over a dozen doctors of divinity gave Richard what would actually have been incorrect advice about the religious impediment to an uncle-niece marriage.
> > > > > And guess who was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey?
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would really like to know if there are any contemporary sources about these rumor? Can Hicks stipulate something like this without any evidence? It makes Richard look bad. Even to someone like me.........
> > > > > > What is the name of the book that this excerpt is from?
> > > > > > Ishita
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yep.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Karen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Brian <wainwright.brian@>
> > > > > > > Reply-To: <>
> > > > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:45:23 -0000
> > > > > > > To: <>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Which book?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hicks is just plain wrong, at least about the validity of the marriage. It
> > > > > > > is now known that Richard and Anne had the necessary dispensation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As to divorcing her, he couldn't do so without divorcing her lands, which
> > > > > > > would have been a big step even for a king. He would also have outraged his
> > > > > > > Neville affinity, the chief prop of his support.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In sum, highly unlikely.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brian W
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Anne conferred no diplomatic connections and possessed no independent title
> > > > > > > to the crown to reinforce his own. It is no wonder, therefore, ? that he
> > > > > > > considered a divorce and remarriage, obviously to a lady able to bring him an
> > > > > > > heir and some of these other attributes. He knew well, after all, that his
> > > > > > > marriage had never been valid. He had only to reveal the absence of a valid
> > > > > > > dispensation to bring it to an end ? Quite what would have befallen his
> > > > > > > ex-queen we cannot tell because the marriage was never declared null. No divorce
> > > > > > > was necessary, as Anne's health declined and she died on 16 March 1485. So
> > > > > > > convenient was this that Richard was alleged to have poisoned her ? a charge
> > > > > > > that he explicitly denied on 30 March. ? There is no reason to doubt Richard's
> > > > > > > declaration of his sorrow at Anne's death. It was political expediency and
> > > > > > > self-preservation that motivated him, not dislike for Anne. ? Anne cannot,
> > > > > > > however, have been ignorant of the rumours of divorce: her last year must have
> > > > > > > been sad indeed."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This excerpt is from one of Hick's books according to this blog:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://meandrichard.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/in-person-she-was-seemly-amiable-an
> > > > > > > d-beauteous-and-full-gracious-anne-neville-actress-poll/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Was Richard really considering divorcing his ailing wife?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Johanne

I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I
need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III
Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the
reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud
at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us
achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put
forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more
harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least
the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the
idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once,
called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the
start.

I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation
either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil incarnate
and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an
exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Which book?






Hi, All -

My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
(or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.

Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.

So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
for sure.

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
mariewalsh2003
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Which book?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Doug
>
> I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
son's
> (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
pick
> up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
degree
> than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> some basis in reality.)
>

I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
for more.
I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
evidence.
Marie

Dear Karen-



But it was you who brought up the term "Mag the Hag"! So, in effect you were
"upping the ante" in the discussion. You may be thinking of more extreme
views aired on Facebook, which you have alluded to before - but, hey, I
don't read any other forums/venues concerned with Richard, so I am
restricted to what I have read here or in published materials, none of which
have impugned Margaret B. personally that I can recall. Certainly I am darn
sure that I have never heard her called "Mag the Hag" - until you did so in
your email. I think we are all aware of how many times things are said in
the popular media that people regret afterwards. If something is said on
Facebook or Twitter, it could easily be said by a terminally immature
person. Not only that, I have seen enough to know that when comments can be
made anonymously the person may be coming from any bias - just trying to be
a s**t-disturber in other words. So it may be best to simply ignore such
cretinous comments.



I don't want to repeat myself, so I won't repeat the discussion which
preceded your email in which you brought up the term "Mag the Hag." I will
only repeat that there was nothing vehement said against Margaret Beaufort,
not even implied. The implication, which is proper speculation on a
discussion list like this one, was whether Morton might have had a hand in
the composition of the Croyland Chronicle or the Continuation. The fact that
Madge Beaufort was Margaret's sister - that was said more as an indication
of possible Lancastrian/Tudorian sympathies which might have been held by
the Croyland friars/monks in general, I think, rather than a slam at
Margaret herself.



Also, the first rule of any discussion list should be courtesy among all the
members. I don't think it was necessary to implicitly criticize anybody here
for an excess of hostility toward Margaret Beaufort. I note that both Doug
and Marie quickly came to Margaret's defence. And, since they did so, I
jumped in to remind everyone that the starting point of the discussion did
not even name Margaret B.



But as a newly-re-energized Ricardian, I want to know about Margaret, what
she was doing and what her influence may have been. I have been reading more
about Margaret of Anjou recently, because I am in the 1450's at present in
Josephine Wilkinson's book, *Richard III: The Young King to Be* (which I
would recommend as a book which gives background to a lot of the people and
events like the Duke of York's unenviable position dealing with the . . .
cowardice? Incompetence? Of the Duke of Somerset, who largely lost France
for Henry VI). Anyway, Margaret of Anjou was seemingly an indomitable
character. She was an enemy, a significant enemy, to "our" side in the WotR.
But it's going to be important also to understand what she was up to and
what her influence was in the whole scenario we are dealing with through
Bosworth. My point is that one has to be able to attack such people here,
freely - because one sentence or two may be injudicious it does not mean it
is out of line as far as a discussion group goes. The thing is to encourage
the free flow of discussion, that all members feel they have an equal right
to post their thoughts. After all, none of us knows everything about this
period, and we are all dealing in possibilities. So, different scenarios
have to be aired and discussed freely.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne











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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - <mailto:jltournier60@...> jltournier60@...

or <mailto:jltournier@...> jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?





Johanne

I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I
need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III
Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the
reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud
at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us
achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put
forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more
harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least
the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the
idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once,
called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the
start.

I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation
either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil incarnate
and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an
exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: Re: Which book?

Hi, All -

My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
(or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.

Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.

So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
for sure.

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
mariewalsh2003
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Which book?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Doug
>
> I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
son's
> (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
pick
> up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
degree
> than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> some basis in reality.)
>

I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
for more.
I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
evidence.
Marie

Qu'est-ce qu'on a pas écrit sur elle et moi...?

Chinese.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen-
>
>
>
> But it was you who brought up the term "Mag the Hag"! So, in effect you were
> "upping the ante" in the discussion. You may be thinking of more extreme
> views aired on Facebook, which you have alluded to before - but, hey, I
> don't read any other forums/venues concerned with Richard, so I am
> restricted to what I have read here or in published materials, none of which
> have impugned Margaret B. personally that I can recall. Certainly I am darn
> sure that I have never heard her called "Mag the Hag" - until you did so in
> your email. I think we are all aware of how many times things are said in
> the popular media that people regret afterwards. If something is said on
> Facebook or Twitter, it could easily be said by a terminally immature
> person. Not only that, I have seen enough to know that when comments can be
> made anonymously the person may be coming from any bias - just trying to be
> a s**t-disturber in other words. So it may be best to simply ignore such
> cretinous comments.
>
>
>
> I don't want to repeat myself, so I won't repeat the discussion which
> preceded your email in which you brought up the term "Mag the Hag." I will
> only repeat that there was nothing vehement said against Margaret Beaufort,
> not even implied. The implication, which is proper speculation on a
> discussion list like this one, was whether Morton might have had a hand in
> the composition of the Croyland Chronicle or the Continuation. The fact that
> Madge Beaufort was Margaret's sister - that was said more as an indication
> of possible Lancastrian/Tudorian sympathies which might have been held by
> the Croyland friars/monks in general, I think, rather than a slam at
> Margaret herself.
>
>
>
> Also, the first rule of any discussion list should be courtesy among all the
> members. I don't think it was necessary to implicitly criticize anybody here
> for an excess of hostility toward Margaret Beaufort. I note that both Doug
> and Marie quickly came to Margaret's defence. And, since they did so, I
> jumped in to remind everyone that the starting point of the discussion did
> not even name Margaret B.
>
>
>
> But as a newly-re-energized Ricardian, I want to know about Margaret, what
> she was doing and what her influence may have been. I have been reading more
> about Margaret of Anjou recently, because I am in the 1450's at present in
> Josephine Wilkinson's book, *Richard III: The Young King to Be* (which I
> would recommend as a book which gives background to a lot of the people and
> events like the Duke of York's unenviable position dealing with the . . .
> cowardice? Incompetence? Of the Duke of Somerset, who largely lost France
> for Henry VI). Anyway, Margaret of Anjou was seemingly an indomitable
> character. She was an enemy, a significant enemy, to "our" side in the WotR.
> But it's going to be important also to understand what she was up to and
> what her influence was in the whole scenario we are dealing with through
> Bosworth. My point is that one has to be able to attack such people here,
> freely - because one sentence or two may be injudicious it does not mean it
> is out of line as far as a discussion group goes. The thing is to encourage
> the free flow of discussion, that all members feel they have an equal right
> to post their thoughts. After all, none of us knows everything about this
> period, and we are all dealing in possibilities. So, different scenarios
> have to be aired and discussed freely.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - <mailto:jltournier60@...> jltournier60@...
>
> or <mailto:jltournier@...> jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 8:50 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I
> need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III
> Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the
> reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud
> at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us
> achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put
> forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more
> harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least
> the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the
> idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once,
> called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the
> start.
>
> I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation
> either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil incarnate
> and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an
> exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...
> <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400
> To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: RE: Re: Which book?
>
> Hi, All -
>
> My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
> the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
> recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
> (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
> was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
> Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.
>
> Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
> operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
> used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
> necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
> Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
> hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.
>
> So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
> Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
> about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
> for sure.
>
> 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
> mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
> son's
> > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
> pick
> > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> > thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
> degree
> > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> > some basis in reality.)
> >
>
> I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
> Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
> child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
> opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
> Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
> and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
> her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
> for more.
> I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
> just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
> evidence.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hello Karen, Bigpond are you Aussie? How I miss those clear blue skies!
 
I'm going to throw in my twopenneth on this. Firstly for those who say R was a victim, I agree. It depends how you define victim. He like most of the key players of 1483 was a victim of circumstance. The circumstance was the catastrophic premature death of E4. Without that no doubt he would be dallying in the Dales, E5 would be studying his Latin declensions, Rivers would be composing odes and Hastings popping round to Ms Shore. I think even the most rigorous historian has found it hard to attribute any Machiavellian plotting by R before this date or for that matter against him. He was just the King's brother who weirdly I guess to the London Court mob preferred to lord it in his own northern palatinate. Not so good if you're a rival northern lord (Stanley, Northumberland)but fairly benign otherwise. E4's death was a vortex which sucked everyone in; something you couldn't really ignore if you were a key player and wanted to survive.
 
As for MB, well I find her rather unlovely and admit that's prejudice but I somehow don't think I'd like her if I met her but that's probably because I'm allergic to the overtly pious. I think she was a clever woman and a clever woman devoted to her son's cause couldn't help but be heartened by the self-combustion of the House of York. I have her more as an opportunist persuader but with the absence of primary sources I could be totally wrong. She might have been adored by the York women, after all Cis left her books to her. 
 
As far as reputation goes, I see this forum as a group of diverse investigators rather than mudslingers, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of humour between friends as we wallow in all this. Opinions are there to be challenged and disproved. History lectures would be very dull if we didn't have a laugh at someone's expense - it doesn't mean that they appear like that in the final thesis, after all as historians we have to be unbiased and objective - something even a saint would find hard to achieve. I would love to see the Society with a sense of humour, rather like the person we defend.  Cheers Hilary
(and I didn't call her that and all this is just my opinion)
 


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 0:49
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?

 

Johanne I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once, called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the start. I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil
incarnate and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones. Karen From: Johanne Tournier <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400 To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: Re: Which book? Hi, All - My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter. Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine operating against Richard. And it seems
to me that that is true - that as we used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again, necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers. So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's for sure. Loyaulte me lie, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> or 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 mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: Which book? --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote: > > Doug > > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her son's > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I pick > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of > thing. The gleeful
rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater degree > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have > some basis in reality.) > I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on opposite sides of the fence, and that was that. Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to her servants and
genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed for more. I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no evidence. Marie

Stephen Lark

"I agree - even under the 1925 family laws, adoption cannot qualify one for
a title or crown and surely cannot in 1484-5."

Thank you, Stephen. I didn't think it was possible. I knew an adopted child
can take precedence over other near relatives, but I had no idea how far
that could legally be carried.
Should've realized it wouldn't fly, if only because it could solve so many
problems so simply!
Doug

Cher Blanc Sanglier -

Qu'est-ce que tu veux dire?



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
blancsanglier1452
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?





Qu'est-ce qu'on a pas écrit sur elle et moi...?

Chinese.






<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxajdq
ODQ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
NjY3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc2NjA0Mg--?act=reply&messageNum=19
667> Reply via web post


<mailto:blancsanglier1452@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Socie
ty%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Which%20book%3F> Reply to sender


<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Which%20book%3F> Reply to group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNmJj
ZXM2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc2NjA0Mg--> Start a New Topic


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19467;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2Y2hvN290BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzE5NjY3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc2NjA0MgR0cGNJZAMxOTQ2Nw-
-> Messages in this topic (44)

Recent Activity:

·
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmc
HQ2NWo2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NjYwNDI-?o=6> New Members 2

·
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNm1
kdDY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NjYwNDI-> New Photos 1


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZjh0NzU4B
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc2NjA0Mg--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdm1xOHFnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNzY2MDQy>
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
=19667/stime=1353766042/nc1=4025321/nc2=3848614/nc3=5008816>

Hilary Jones wrote:
//snip//
"I'm going to throw in my twopenneth on this. Firstly for those who say R
was a victim, I agree. It depends how you define victim. He like most of the
key players of 1483 was a victim of circumstance. The circumstance was the
catastrophic premature death of E4."

That's more or less how I view Richard. We do know he avoided the Court,
whether that was due to his dislike of some people there, the general
atmosphere at any Court, because he was determined to apply himself to the
job he'd been charged with or a combination of them all, we don't know. I
tend to lean to a combination of reasons one and three, but I don't have
much factual evidence to back it up - just the evidence presented by
Richard's actions before and after his brother died.

"Without that no doubt he would be dallying in the Dales, E5 would be
studying his Latin declensions, Rivers would be composing odes and Hastings
popping round to Ms Shore. I think even the most rigorous historian has
found it hard to attribute any Machiavellian plotting by R before this date
or for that matter against him. He was just the King's brother who weirdly I
guess to the London Court mob preferred to lord it in his own northern
palatinate. Not so good if you're a rival northern lord (Stanley,
Northumberland)but fairly benign otherwise.
E4's death was a vortex which sucked everyone in; something you couldn't
really ignore if you were a key player and wanted to survive."

If this is a sample of your writing, no wonder you have problems getting
published - it's good!

"As for MB, well I find her rather unlovely and admit that's prejudice but I
somehow don't think I'd like her if I met her but that's probably because
I'm allergic to the overtly pious. I think she was a clever woman and a
clever woman devoted to her son's cause couldn't help but be heartened by
the self-combustion of the House of York. I have her more as an opportunist
persuader but with the absence of primary sources I could be totally wrong.
She might have been adored by the York women, after all Cis left her books
to her."

"Clever" and "opportunist" is exactly the way I view Margaret Beaufort
actions in regards to her son. When Edward was king, she was willing to just
have Henry be able to safely return to England. Once Edward died and the
York/Woodvilles began squabbling, she saw an opportunity to get Henry back
in England - as king - and worked for that.
//snip//
Doug

Great post , Hillary.

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

On Nov 24, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Hello Karen, Bigpond are you Aussie? How I miss those clear blue skies!
>
> I'm going to throw in my twopenneth on this. Firstly for those who say R was a victim, I agree. It depends how you define victim. He like most of the key players of 1483 was a victim of circumstance. The circumstance was the catastrophic premature death of E4. Without that no doubt he would be dallying in the Dales, E5 would be studying his Latin declensions, Rivers would be composing odes and Hastings popping round to Ms Shore. I think even the most rigorous historian has found it hard to attribute any Machiavellian plotting by R before this date or for that matter against him. He was just the King's brother who weirdly I guess to the London Court mob preferred to lord it in his own northern palatinate. Not so good if you're a rival northern lord (Stanley, Northumberland)but fairly benign otherwise. E4's death was a vortex which sucked everyone in; something you couldn't really ignore if you were a key player and wanted to survive.
>
> As for MB, well I find her rather unlovely and admit that's prejudice but I somehow don't think I'd like her if I met her but that's probably because I'm allergic to the overtly pious. I think she was a clever woman and a clever woman devoted to her son's cause couldn't help but be heartened by the self-combustion of the House of York. I have her more as an opportunist persuader but with the absence of primary sources I could be totally wrong. She might have been adored by the York women, after all Cis left her books to her.
>
> As far as reputation goes, I see this forum as a group of diverse investigators rather than mudslingers, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of humour between friends as we wallow in all this. Opinions are there to be challenged and disproved. History lectures would be very dull if we didn't have a laugh at someone's expense - it doesn't mean that they appear like that in the final thesis, after all as historians we have to be unbiased and objective - something even a saint would find hard to achieve. I would love to see the Society with a sense of humour, rather like the person we defend. Cheers Hilary
> (and I didn't call her that and all this is just my opinion)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 0:49
> Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
> Johanne I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once, called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the start. I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil
> incarnate and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones. Karen From: Johanne Tournier <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400 To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: Re: Which book? Hi, All - My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter. Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine operating against Richard. And it seems
> to me that that is true - that as we used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again, necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers. So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's for sure. Loyaulte me lie, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> or 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 mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: Which book? --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote: > > Doug > > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her son's > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I pick > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of > thing. The gleeful
> rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater degree > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have > some basis in reality.) > I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on opposite sides of the fence, and that was that. Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to her servants and
> genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed for more. I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no evidence. Marie
>
>
>
>
>

Karen Clark wrote:

"Doug
I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her son's
(and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I pick
up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater degree
than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
some basis in reality.)"

Do spiders "lurk" in pairs? Because while I personally lean towards Morton
as the mover behind much of what occurred during Richard's reign, "spider",
he was often not in a position to exert direct control when needed and that,
I think, is where Margaret Beaufort comes in.
I think some (much?) of the animus against Margaret Beaufort is due to what
we do know. She was, twice?, placed under the charge of her husband because
of her actions; actions that, had she been male, would have resulted in her
being beheaded for treason. Did she play on the "safety", such as it was,
that being a woman gave her?
It's certainly possible her husband was using her as a "front" for HIS
activities, just as it's possible she was more involved than he. We DO know
she was involved in treason against Richard, we DO know she was quite
willing to set forces loose that would certainly result in the death of
hundreds, if not thousands of men and we DO know Margaret wouldn't be on any
of those battlefields.
That last alone could cause a lot of the animus against and portrayals of
Margaret.

"What I'm finding in my own research into the lives of the Nevill sisters
and wives is that some of them played more of a part in the business of
their husbands (and brothers) than others. I'd put Margaret countess of
Oxford, the countesses of Salisbury and Warwick, Alice lady Fitzhugh and
Maud lady Willoughby in the 'more active' pile. Isobel Ingoldisthorpe,
Katheryn lady Hastings, Alianor lady Stanley and joan countess of Arundel
would be in the 'less active, possibly not active at all' pile. As I get
deeper into it,
this may change. Cecily Nevill and Margaret Beaufort probably need a pile
all their own!"

Well, when a close relative is the king or someone closely connected to the
Court, that would explain a lot. The necessity for good public relations
existed in the fifteenth century, even if it wasn't called that. And if one
couldn't trust one's spouse, who could one trust?

"With the examples of his mother, aunt and a handful of female cousins,
Richard probably didn't assume women to be passive. Margaret B may have been
a 'lurker' but I just can't see her controlling events and plotting for her
son to take the throne right from the start."

There's "passive" as in your rightly disliked "pawns" and there's "passive"
in the sense of there were certain things a female could do to help her
husband/family even when opposing the king and still not commit treason. In
my view, Margaret not only ignored any limits, she may well have set a new
world's record!
"Right from the start", no. She DID give Richard about a month and then
began plotting with Hastings, Morton et al, in keeping Edward (V) on the
throne. Or allowed herself to be used as cover for her husband's
participation in those activities.
Doug
(I've asked for a TARDIS for Christmas, but I don't think I'll get one.I
KNEW I should have gone to Walmart and stood in line!)

Yes...I agree Doug...Everything came to a head with the death of Edward...and I see the event catapulted Richard onto the throne...

Although its possible that MB never entertained a thought about her son taking the throne before this train of events I do think that once she embarked on this path Margaret was in it...the plot...up to her neck. Re MB and Crowland....I do think it was extremely likely that she and Morton had links, some sort of connection to the Chronicler....whoever that was. Marie has pointed out that MB was a lay sister of Crowland. Since then a quick perusal of newly arrived The Deceivers I find Mr Richardson had this to say on the matter:

"One particular interesting point which emerges from closer study of the Lady's life was her regular residence at Deeping, 10 miles from Crowland Abbey, Although the Crowland Continuation has never been identified with any certainty it is clear he must have had accommodation in the Abbey and one can speculate on his possible discourses with one of the great survivors or the period.........If such a link (MB) is accepted as 'probable' it would do much to explain the generally anti-Ricardian tone of the latter part of the Chronicle"

I also read an article in one of my old Ricardian Bulletins (December 2009 to be exact) by Jenny Powys-Lybbe...which says that Margaret raised the matter with Edward re her son marrying EofY..which of course got turned down....which is interesting. MB's plotting with EW when she was in sanctuary is known...Lewis Caerleon being the messenger here according to Vergil.

This article points out that Buckingham was her nephew and the first person to come out fighting and proclaiming rebellion was John Welles, her half-brother. ( me...Certainly the lady had her finger in many pies) Its worth remembering that Catesby had done legal work for both Buckingham and Margaret. Catesby was also married to one of Margaret's relatives. And Catesby was expecting to be rescued after Bosworth by the Stanleys....Oh what a tangled web.....
My thoughts still continue to be that a high percentage of the blame of the rebellion/invasion that took place that resulted in Richard's and his followers deaths at Bosworth can be laid at MB door. Whether she would have managed half as much if she had not Morton encouraging her....who knows...Eileen




>
> "Clever" and "opportunist" is exactly the way I view Margaret Beaufort
> actions in regards to her son. When Edward was king, she was willing to just
> have Henry be able to safely return to England. Once Edward died and the
> York/Woodvilles began squabbling, she saw an opportunity to get Henry back
> in England - as king - and worked for that.
> //snip//
> Doug
>

Karen & Hilary 



I don't know enough about Marg B. to have an opinion other than a general dislike/disapproval of most of what I know about the Weasel, which kind of spills over a bit to those who may have tended to sympathize with his cause. I just tend to think the Yorks were more right and more just and more capable than the Lancasters  and Henry wasn't even really even a Lancaster; besides, his family were really supposed to be barred from the Crown, etc. etc. etc. You get my drift.



Now, speaking of this, funnily enough, I have been seriously considering trying to be myself into an excellent British university  I've been looking at Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and St. Andrew's so far. Of course, when you go to the Oxford website, they tell you that as an Oxford student, you either apply or are picked to be a member of one of their colleges. One of the ones I've looked at most closely is Lady Margaret Hall, which was the first college that admitted women back in the 1870's. Guess who it's named for? No peaking!



The fact that it was named LMH when it was created in the 1870's suggests some residue of influence of the Tudors in the . . . ruling classes in the Victorian era. In that sense, it also suggests to me that within the British establishment there may be a stubborn residue somehow in the genes of hostility to Richard which seems to transcend rationality (I was reading both the Oxford and the Royal Family's websites' materials on RIII recently has, as usual, been a discouraging experience).



But  hey!  it might be fun to be a member of Lady Margaret Hall and be working on a Ricardian DPhil (as they call it at Oxford). Just think of me as a Ricardian mole!



And if there's some credit that Marg B. actually deserves, I'd be more than happy to give her the credit. Here is the blurb from the LMH website:

LMH was founded in 1878 to change Oxford University and to change the world as it was then.


LMH made it possible for the first time for women to study at Oxford, with all that meant both for intellectual development and for access to new career opportunities.

LMH is named in honour of Lady Margaret Beaufort, founder of the Tudor dynasty and renowned patron of scholarship and learning. Our founder Edward Talbot and his companions in the great enterprise of LMH were inspired by a passion for learning and for equality. This was the vision that brought LMH into being and has sustained it ever since.

There: Don't say I never wrote anything nice about Margaret Beaufort. <tongue in cheek>

But before I decide to go to Oxford, I'm going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard's and Anne's contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard's College!

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 Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?





Hello Karen, Bigpond are you Aussie? How I miss those clear blue skies!

I'm going to throw in my twopenneth on this. Firstly for those who say R was a victim, I agree. It depends how you define victim. He like most of the key players of 1483 was a victim of circumstance. The circumstance was the catastrophic premature death of E4. Without that no doubt he would be dallying in the Dales, E5 would be studying his Latin declensions, Rivers would be composing odes and Hastings popping round to Ms Shore. I think even the most rigorous historian has found it hard to attribute any Machiavellian plotting by R before this date or for that matter against him. He was just the King's brother who weirdly I guess to the London Court mob preferred to lord it in his own northern palatinate. Not so good if you're a rival northern lord (Stanley, Northumberland)but fairly benign otherwise. E4's death was a vortex which sucked everyone in; something you couldn't really ignore if you were a key player and wanted to survive.

As for MB, well I find her rather unlovely and admit that's prejudice but I somehow don't think I'd like her if I met her but that's probably because I'm allergic to the overtly pious. I think she was a clever woman and a clever woman devoted to her son's cause couldn't help but be heartened by the self-combustion of the House of York. I have her more as an opportunist persuader but with the absence of primary sources I could be totally wrong. She might have been adored by the York women, after all Cis left her books to her.

As far as reputation goes, I see this forum as a group of diverse investigators rather than mudslingers, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of humour between friends as we wallow in all this. Opinions are there to be challenged and disproved. History lectures would be very dull if we didn't have a laugh at someone's expense - it doesn't mean that they appear like that in the final thesis, after all as historians we have to be unbiased and objective - something even a saint would find hard to achieve. I would love to see the Society with a sense of humour, rather like the person we defend. Cheers Hilary
(and I didn't call her that and all this is just my opinion)



________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@... <mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 0:49
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?



Johanne I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once, called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the start. I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil
incarnate and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones. Karen From: Johanne Tournier <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400 To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: Re: Which book? Hi, All - My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter. Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine operating against Richard. And it seems
to me that that is true - that as we used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again, necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers. So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's for sure. Loyaulte me lie, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> or 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 mariewalsh2003 Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: Which book? --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote: > > Doug > > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her son's > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I pick > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of > thing. The gleeful
rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater degree > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have > some basis in reality.) > I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on opposite sides of the fence, and that was that. Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to her servants and
genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed for more. I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no evidence. Marie

Hilary, the Richard III Society should be respected. By some people, it is.
By many many others, it isn't. The name calling, which crops up here all the
time and on other, more public, forums doesn't do anything to promote
respect. I just don't see the humour in it at all. There's a lot of humour
in this forum and I agree, that's a great thing. Name calling is so very
rarely lighthearted or humorous. It's usually based in anger and hatred. I'm
sure there are people who will tell me how much they hate 'Mag the Hag' and
'the Weasel' and, of course, they're free to hate whoever they want to. For
people striving to be unbiassed and objective, it's an enormous turn off. I
don't want to see any more well read, measured, objective members reduced to
silence or leaving this forum. I really wish we could talk about people more
evenly and, if possibly, objectively. I simply don't understand how people
who are (quite rightly) incensed when Richard III is called (say)
'Crookback' can fling equally unwarranted and unpleasant names at others.

The villefication of Margaret Beaufort and Henry VII that I've seen here is
based on far less than the villefication of Richard, which is something we
all want to see brought to an end. All three should be held accountable for
what wrongs they may have committed and recognised for what good they may
have done. Unbiased and objective is a better way of achieving this than
name calling. I am enormously frustrated by it and I don't think I'm
entirely alone. I take the Society seriously. It should be seen as a
respected hub of Ricardian scholarship. Too often it's seen as a place where
people can indulge their fantasies of Richard. Calling Margaret Beaufort
'Mag the Hag' and talking about her as if she were the incarnation of evil,
the malevolent force behind it all, adds very much to the second perception
of the Society and nothing to the first. (And it was the beginnings of a
'Margaret Beaufort was the malevolent force behind the Croyland propaganda
machine' discussion that inspired me to express the problems I have with it
all.)

A plea, one more time, for a little more unbiased objectivity.

Karen


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 06:11:41 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?






Hello Karen, Bigpond are you Aussie? How I miss those clear blue skies!

I'm going to throw in my twopenneth on this. Firstly for those who say R was
a victim, I agree. It depends how you define victim. He like most of the key
players of 1483 was a victim of circumstance. The circumstance was the
catastrophic premature death of E4. Without that no doubt he would be
dallying in the Dales, E5 would be studying his Latin declensions, Rivers
would be composing odes and Hastings popping round to Ms Shore. I think even
the most rigorous historian has found it hard to attribute any Machiavellian
plotting by R before this date or for that matter against him. He was just
the King's brother who weirdly I guess to the London Court mob preferred to
lord it in his own northern palatinate. Not so good if you're a rival
northern lord (Stanley, Northumberland)but fairly benign otherwise. E4's
death was a vortex which sucked everyone in; something you couldn't really
ignore if you were a key player and wanted to survive.

As for MB, well I find her rather unlovely and admit that's prejudice but I
somehow don't think I'd like her if I met her but that's probably because
I'm allergic to the overtly pious. I think she was a clever woman and a
clever woman devoted to her son's cause couldn't help but be heartened by
the self-combustion of the House of York. I have her more as an opportunist
persuader but with the absence of primary sources I could be totally wrong.
She might have been adored by the York women, after all Cis left her books
to her.

As far as reputation goes, I see this forum as a group of diverse
investigators rather than mudslingers, and there's nothing wrong with a bit
of humour between friends as we wallow in all this. Opinions are there to be
challenged and disproved. History lectures would be very dull if we didn't
have a laugh at someone's expense - it doesn't mean that they appear like
that in the final thesis, after all as historians we have to be unbiased and
objective - something even a saint would find hard to achieve. I would love
to see the Society with a sense of humour, rather like the person we defend.
Cheers Hilary
(and I didn't call her that and all this is just my opinion)

Karen,

I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much less well known chronicle).
In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort, it was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.

Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make pantomime villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down. Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully, wihout leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.

Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne
>
> I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I
> need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III
> Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the
> reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud
> at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us
> achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put
> forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more
> harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least
> the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the
> idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once,
> called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the
> start.
>
> I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation
> either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil incarnate
> and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an
> exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400
> To: <>
> Subject: RE: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, All -
>
> My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
> the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
> recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
> (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
> was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
> Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.
>
> Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
> operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
> used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
> necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
> Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
> hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.
>
> So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
> Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
> about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
> for sure.
>
> 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
> mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
> son's
> > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
> pick
> > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> > thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
> degree
> > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> > some basis in reality.)
> >
>
> I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
> Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
> child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
> opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
> Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
> and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
> her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
> for more.
> I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
> just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
> evidence.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie

I clearly misunderstood your 'guess whoŠ?' post as being yet another example
of the Margaret Beaufort Conspiracy. It was the unfortunate catalyst for my
request that we don't make pantomime villains out of some of Richard's
contemporaries.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:03:36 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Which book?






Karen,

I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she
was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when
writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much less
well known chronicle).
In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort, it
was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.

Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make pantomime
villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down.
Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully, wihout
leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.

Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne
>
> I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I
> need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III
> Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the
> reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud
> at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us
> achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put
> forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more
> harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least
> the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the
> idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once,
> called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the
> start.
>
> I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation
> either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil incarnate
> and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an
> exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: RE: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi, All -
>
> My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
> the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
> recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
> (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
> was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
> Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.
>
> Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
> operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
> used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
> necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
> Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
> hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.
>
> So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
> Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
> about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
> for sure.
>
> 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:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
> son's
> > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
> pick
> > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> > thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
> degree
> > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> > some basis in reality.)
> >
>
> I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
> Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
> child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
> opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
> Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
> and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
> her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
> for more.
> I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
> just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
> evidence.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Karen and All, Now I am feeling really bad that I was the one who mentioned that "Richard had no chance against the propaganda machine". I of course did not know the name " Mag the Hag" at that time......I did not for a moment think that it could come to all this heated exchange. 

And yes, I do believe that Richard had no chance in the political environment when he ascended to the throne. Not a victim in the usual sense of the word but Victim nonetheless of the circumstances. This post started with the question about the excerpt that I quoted. It is still thought that Richard wanted to set aside Anne. Which, you guys assured me is not correct and they did have partial dispensation to have their marriage legalized. If that is so "the rumor mill/propaganda" to make Richard look like a heartless monster has succeeded through ages..... In that sense he is  a victim.


Ishita Bandyo

Ishita Bandyo Contemporary Fine Art
www.ishitabandyo.com
Facebook

Latest post: Okay, power back! Hot water shower never seemed so heavenly! Now I have to make up for a week of not painting.......
  Like · Comment · Share Ishita Bandyo Fine Arts page on Facebook     Like
  Get this email app!  
Designed with WiseStamp - Get yours 
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?


 
Hilary, the Richard III Society should be respected. By some people, it is.
By many many others, it isn't. The name calling, which crops up here all the
time and on other, more public, forums doesn't do anything to promote
respect. I just don't see the humour in it at all. There's a lot of humour
in this forum and I agree, that's a great thing. Name calling is so very
rarely lighthearted or humorous. It's usually based in anger and hatred. I'm
sure there are people who will tell me how much they hate 'Mag the Hag' and
'the Weasel' and, of course, they're free to hate whoever they want to. For
people striving to be unbiassed and objective, it's an enormous turn off. I
don't want to see any more well read, measured, objective members reduced to
silence or leaving this forum. I really wish we could talk about people more
evenly and, if possibly, objectively. I simply don't understand how people
who are (quite rightly) incensed when Richard III is called (say)
'Crookback' can fling equally unwarranted and unpleasant names at others.

The villefication of Margaret Beaufort and Henry VII that I've seen here is
based on far less than the villefication of Richard, which is something we
all want to see brought to an end. All three should be held accountable for
what wrongs they may have committed and recognised for what good they may
have done. Unbiased and objective is a better way of achieving this than
name calling. I am enormously frustrated by it and I don't think I'm
entirely alone. I take the Society seriously. It should be seen as a
respected hub of Ricardian scholarship. Too often it's seen as a place where
people can indulge their fantasies of Richard. Calling Margaret Beaufort
'Mag the Hag' and talking about her as if she were the incarnation of evil,
the malevolent force behind it all, adds very much to the second perception
of the Society and nothing to the first. (And it was the beginnings of a
'Margaret Beaufort was the malevolent force behind the Croyland propaganda
machine' discussion that inspired me to express the problems I have with it
all.)

A plea, one more time, for a little more unbiased objectivity.

Karen

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 06:11:41 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?

Hello Karen, Bigpond are you Aussie? How I miss those clear blue skies!

I'm going to throw in my twopenneth on this. Firstly for those who say R was
a victim, I agree. It depends how you define victim. He like most of the key
players of 1483 was a victim of circumstance. The circumstance was the
catastrophic premature death of E4. Without that no doubt he would be
dallying in the Dales, E5 would be studying his Latin declensions, Rivers
would be composing odes and Hastings popping round to Ms Shore. I think even
the most rigorous historian has found it hard to attribute any Machiavellian
plotting by R before this date or for that matter against him. He was just
the King's brother who weirdly I guess to the London Court mob preferred to
lord it in his own northern palatinate. Not so good if you're a rival
northern lord (Stanley, Northumberland)but fairly benign otherwise. E4's
death was a vortex which sucked everyone in; something you couldn't really
ignore if you were a key player and wanted to survive.

As for MB, well I find her rather unlovely and admit that's prejudice but I
somehow don't think I'd like her if I met her but that's probably because
I'm allergic to the overtly pious. I think she was a clever woman and a
clever woman devoted to her son's cause couldn't help but be heartened by
the self-combustion of the House of York. I have her more as an opportunist
persuader but with the absence of primary sources I could be totally wrong.
She might have been adored by the York women, after all Cis left her books
to her.

As far as reputation goes, I see this forum as a group of diverse
investigators rather than mudslingers, and there's nothing wrong with a bit
of humour between friends as we wallow in all this. Opinions are there to be
challenged and disproved. History lectures would be very dull if we didn't
have a laugh at someone's expense - it doesn't mean that they appear like
that in the final thesis, after all as historians we have to be unbiased and
objective - something even a saint would find hard to achieve. I would love
to see the Society with a sense of humour, rather like the person we defend.
Cheers Hilary
(and I didn't call her that and all this is just my opinion)

Hi, Marie –

And that shows what a novice I am; if when the name came up “Madge
Beaufort,” y’all meant Margaret and not her sister, I didn’t realize it. I
didn’t know that “Madge” was a short form for “Margaret” (and my mother’s
name was Margaret, LOL!). Or were there in fact two Beaufort girls, with
both being associated with Croyland/Crowland? And if that is so, that does
suggest some reason for being suspicious of a Beaufort conspiracy. (LOL
again)



Personally, I just tend to believe that Richard was not as well versed in
the promulgation of vicious and nasty rumours about his opponents as they
were, and thus that in that area he was relatively naïve and not fully
prepared to fight fire with fire. For which his reputation is still
suffering to this day. Imho.



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 mariewalsh2003
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?






Karen,

I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she
was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when
writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much less
well known chronicle).
In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort, it
was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.

Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make pantomime
villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down.
Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully, wihout
leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.

Marie


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpp
cWtnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
684> Reply via web post


<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
ch%20book%3F> Reply to sender


<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Which%20book%3F> Reply to group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYnBq
NXYxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Start a New Topic


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19467;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2c2RtN3MwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzE5Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOAR0cGNJZAMxOTQ2Nw-
-> Messages in this topic (54)

Recent Activity:

·
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb
nZicTJ2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-?o=6> New Members 2

·
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGt
rajlrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-> New Photos 1


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDI3ZWZrB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaTNlajdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNzczMTE4>
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
=19684/stime=1353773118/nc1=4025291/nc2=3848614/nc3=5008814>

Yes Johanne..but it was me who used the name 'Madge' which is a pet name for Margaret...like Maggie...Its not an insult...Hal for Henry....Mickey for Mike.etc.,.that sort of thing....Eileen
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie –
>
> And that shows what a novice I am; if when the name came up "Madge
> Beaufort," y'all meant Margaret and not her sister, I didn't realize it. I
> didn't know that "Madge" was a short form for "Margaret" (and my mother's
> name was Margaret, LOL!). Or were there in fact two Beaufort girls, with
> both being associated with Croyland/Crowland? And if that is so, that does
> suggest some reason for being suspicious of a Beaufort conspiracy. (LOL
> again)
>
>
>
> Personally, I just tend to believe that Richard was not as well versed in
> the promulgation of vicious and nasty rumours about his opponents as they
> were, and thus that in that area he was relatively naïve and not fully
> prepared to fight fire with fire. For which his reputation is still
> suffering to this day. Imho.
>
>
>
> 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 mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:04 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
> sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she
> was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
> neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when
> writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much less
> well known chronicle).
> In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
> connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort, it
> was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.
>
> Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make pantomime
> villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
> exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down.
> Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully, wihout
> leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.
>
> Marie
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpp
> cWtnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 684> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
> ch%20book%3F> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Which%20book%3F> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYnBq
> NXYxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19467;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2c2RtN3MwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE5Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOAR0cGNJZAMxOTQ2Nw-
> -> Messages in this topic (54)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> ·
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb
> nZicTJ2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> ·
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGt
> rajlrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-> New Photos 1
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDI3ZWZrB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaTNlajdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNzczMTE4>
> 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
> =19684/stime=1353773118/nc1=4025291/nc2=3848614/nc3=5008814>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ishita

I'm sorry that you feel bad about this and wish you didn't! I guess this is
something I've tried to hold my tongue about but it came out anyway, just at
the wrong moment! You and Marie were just in the wrong place at the wrong
time and, for that, I'm sorry. The whole name calling thing has bothered me
for some time. Clearly, it doesn't bother everyone.

Hilary also said she thought Richard a 'victim of circumstance', and I agree
with you both. To me, though, looking at him as a victim (and not just 'of
circumstance') weakens him and makes him not responsible at all for what
happened during his life and reign. That's not the way I like to view him,
but I understand that others do.

Karen

From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:24:45 -0800 (PST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?






Karen and All, Now I am feeling really bad that I was the one who mentioned
that "Richard had no chance against the propaganda machine". I of course did
not know the name " Mag the Hag" at that time......I did not for a moment
think that it could come to all this heated exchange.

And yes, I do believe that Richard had no chance in the political
environment when he ascended to the throne. Not a victim in the usual sense
of the word but Victim nonetheless of the circumstances. This post started
with the question about the excerpt that I quoted. It is still thought that
Richard wanted to set aside Anne. Which, you guys assured me is not correct
and they did have partial dispensation to have their marriage legalized. If
that is so "the rumor mill/propaganda" to make Richard look like a heartless
monster has succeeded through ages..... In that sense he is a victim.

Ishita Bandyo

Ha, ha! I had no idea! Duh! Now I know!



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 24, 2012 12:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?





Yes Johanne..but it was me who used the name 'Madge' which is a pet name for
Margaret...like Maggie...Its not an insult...Hal for Henry....Mickey for
Mike.etc.,.that sort of thing....Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie –
>
> And that shows what a novice I am; if when the name came up "Madge
> Beaufort," y'all meant Margaret and not her sister, I didn't realize it. I
> didn't know that "Madge" was a short form for "Margaret" (and my mother's
> name was Margaret, LOL!). Or were there in fact two Beaufort girls, with
> both being associated with Croyland/Crowland? And if that is so, that does
> suggest some reason for being suspicious of a Beaufort conspiracy. (LOL
> again)
>
>
>
> Personally, I just tend to believe that Richard was not as well versed in
> the promulgation of vicious and nasty rumours about his opponents as they
> were, and thus that in that area he was relatively naïve and not fully
> prepared to fight fire with fire. For which his reputation is still
> suffering to this day. Imho.
>
>
>
> 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
mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:04 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
> sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she
> was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
> neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when
> writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much
less
> well known chronicle).
> In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
> connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort,
it
> was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.
>
> Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make
pantomime
> villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
> exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down.
> Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully,
wihout
> leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpp
>
cWtnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
>
Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 684> Reply via web post
>
>
>
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
%0b>
> ch%20book%3F> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Which%20book%3F> Reply to group
>
>
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYnBq
>
NXYxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Start a New Topic
>
>
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19467;_ylc=X3o
>
DMTM2c2RtN3MwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
>
zZ0lkAzE5Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOAR0cGNJZAMxOTQ2Nw-
> -> Messages in this topic (54)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> ·
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb
>
nZicTJ2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> ·
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGt
>
rajlrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-> New Photos 1
>
>
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDI3ZWZrB
>
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaTNlajdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
>
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNzczMTE4>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com>
?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com>
?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest •
> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe • <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use •
> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com>
?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
>
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =19684/stime=1353773118/nc1=4025291/nc2=3848614/nc3=5008814>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne

Given some of the things stated in Titulus Regius, and given that Richard
knew well the manifesto writer extraordinaire, Warwick, I'm not sure he was
entirely ignorant of the power language can have in shaping thought and
opinion. Beyond that, I agree, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he
had quite Warwick's skill (or even his father's) with malicious political
rumours.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 12:27:38 -0400
To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: Which book?






Hi, Marie –

And that shows what a novice I am; if when the name came up “Madge
Beaufort,” y’all meant Margaret and not her sister, I didn’t realize it. I
didn’t know that “Madge” was a short form for “Margaret” (and my mother’s
name was Margaret, LOL!). Or were there in fact two Beaufort girls, with
both being associated with Croyland/Crowland? And if that is so, that does
suggest some reason for being suspicious of a Beaufort conspiracy. (LOL
again)

Personally, I just tend to believe that Richard was not as well versed in
the promulgation of vicious and nasty rumours about his opponents as they
were, and thus that in that area he was relatively naïve and not fully
prepared to fight fire with fire. For which his reputation is still
suffering to this day. Imho.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

No problem.....you know Johanne...I think I will be leaving this forum for a little while...Eileen


--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Ha, ha! I had no idea! Duh! Now I know!
>
>
>
> 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 24, 2012 12:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes Johanne..but it was me who used the name 'Madge' which is a pet name for
> Margaret...like Maggie...Its not an insult...Hal for Henry....Mickey for
> Mike.etc.,.that sort of thing....Eileen
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Marie –
> >
> > And that shows what a novice I am; if when the name came up "Madge
> > Beaufort," y'all meant Margaret and not her sister, I didn't realize it. I
> > didn't know that "Madge" was a short form for "Margaret" (and my mother's
> > name was Margaret, LOL!). Or were there in fact two Beaufort girls, with
> > both being associated with Croyland/Crowland? And if that is so, that does
> > suggest some reason for being suspicious of a Beaufort conspiracy. (LOL
> > again)
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally, I just tend to believe that Richard was not as well versed in
> > the promulgation of vicious and nasty rumours about his opponents as they
> > were, and thus that in that area he was relatively naïve and not fully
> > prepared to fight fire with fire. For which his reputation is still
> > suffering to this day. Imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:04 PM
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
> > sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she
> > was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
> > neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when
> > writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much
> less
> > well known chronicle).
> > In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
> > connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort,
> it
> > was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.
> >
> > Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make
> pantomime
> > villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
> > exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down.
> > Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully,
> wihout
> > leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpp
> >
> cWtnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> >
> Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> > 684> Reply via web post
> >
> >
> >
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
> %0b>
> > ch%20book%3F> Reply to sender
> >
> >
> > <mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> > III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Which%20book%3F> Reply to group
> >
> >
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYnBq
> >
> NXYxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> > c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Start a New Topic
> >
> >
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19467;_ylc=X3o
> >
> DMTM2c2RtN3MwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> >
> zZ0lkAzE5Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOAR0cGNJZAMxOTQ2Nw-
> > -> Messages in this topic (54)
> >
> > Recent Activity:
> >
> > ·
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb
> >
> nZicTJ2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> > GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-?o=6> New Members 2
> >
> > ·
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGt
> >
> rajlrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> > Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-> New Photos 1
> >
> >
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDI3ZWZrB
> >
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> > 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Visit Your Group
> >
> >
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaTNlajdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> >
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNzczMTE4>
> > Yahoo! Groups
> >
> > Switch to:
> > <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Change%20
> > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Email%20Delive
> > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest •
> > <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Unsubscri
> > be> Unsubscribe • <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use •
> > <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> > =19684/stime=1353773118/nc1=4025291/nc2=3848614/nc3=5008814>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wish you wouldn’t, Eileen – but if you do leave, I hope you will promise
to come back soon! You will be missed!



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 24, 2012 12:52 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?





No problem.....you know Johanne...I think I will be leaving this forum for a
little while...Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Ha, ha! I had no idea! Duh! Now I know!
>
>
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:38 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes Johanne..but it was me who used the name 'Madge' which is a pet name
for
> Margaret...like Maggie...Its not an insult...Hal for Henry....Mickey for
> Mike.etc.,.that sort of thing....Eileen
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Marie –
> >
> > And that shows what a novice I am; if when the name came up "Madge
> > Beaufort," y'all meant Margaret and not her sister, I didn't realize it.
I
> > didn't know that "Madge" was a short form for "Margaret" (and my
mother's
> > name was Margaret, LOL!). Or were there in fact two Beaufort girls, with
> > both being associated with Croyland/Crowland? And if that is so, that
does
> > suggest some reason for being suspicious of a Beaufort conspiracy. (LOL
> > again)
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally, I just tend to believe that Richard was not as well versed
in
> > the promulgation of vicious and nasty rumours about his opponents as
they
> > were, and thus that in that area he was relatively naïve and not fully
> > prepared to fight fire with fire. For which his reputation is still
> > suffering to this day. Imho.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:04 PM
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
> > sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that
she
> > was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
> > neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations
when
> > writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much
> less
> > well known chronicle).
> > In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
> > connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort,
> it
> > was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.
> >
> > Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make
> pantomime
> > villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
> > exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them
down.
> > Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully,
> wihout
> > leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpp
> >
>
cWtnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> >
>
Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> > 684> Reply via web post
> >
> >
> >
>
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
%0b>
>
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
%0b>
> %0b>
> > ch%20book%3F> Reply to sender
> >
> >
> > <mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> > III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Which%20book%3F> Reply to group
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYnBq
> >
>
NXYxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> > c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Start a New Topic
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19467;_ylc=X3o
> >
>
DMTM2c2RtN3MwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> >
>
zZ0lkAzE5Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOAR0cGNJZAMxOTQ2Nw-
> > -> Messages in this topic (54)
> >
> > Recent Activity:
> >
> > ·
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb
> >
>
nZicTJ2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> > GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-?o=6> New Members 2
> >
> > ·
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGt
> >
>
rajlrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> > Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-> New Photos 1
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDI3ZWZrB
> >
>
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> > 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Visit Your Group
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaTNlajdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> >
>
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNzczMTE4>
> > Yahoo! Groups
> >
> > Switch to:
> > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Change%20
> > Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Email%20Delive
> > ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest •
> > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Unsubscri
> > be> Unsubscribe • <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use •
> > <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com>
> ?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> > edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> > =19684/stime=1353773118/nc1=4025291/nc2=3848614/nc3=5008814>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
> The fact that
> Madge Beaufort was Margaret's sister - that was said more as an indication
> of possible Lancastrian/Tudorian sympathies which might have been held by
> the Croyland friars/monks in general, I think, rather than a slam at
> Margaret herself.
>


Wait, wait...Who is Madge Beaufort? Madge is usually a nickname for Marjorie/Margery but I don't recall anyone by those names in this period of history.

I'm so confused....


Katy

Karen,

With all due respect, you have leapt to several such misunderstandings of my posts. It makes it hard for me to stay on this forum when time and again what I have written is misrepresented to make me look like an unthinking twit. There, I've said it.

For what it's worth I don't like use of terms like 'Weasel' and 'Fat Henry' either, and I've NEVER used them. NO ONE on this forum has used 'Mag the Hag', a point that has been made to you by two other members already, but yet you have since that brought again it up again!

I would much rather someone take a knee-jerk disparaging view of figures from history than do the same to people they're actually sharing the forum with so let us all please treat other members of the forum as individuals and make an attempt to get to know where they're coming from and address only what they have actually posted, making clear exactly who and what we are taking issue with.

Marie



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> I clearly misunderstood your 'guess whoŠ?' post as being yet another example
> of the Margaret Beaufort Conspiracy. It was the unfortunate catalyst for my
> request that we don't make pantomime villains out of some of Richard's
> contemporaries.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:03:36 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
> sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she
> was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
> neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when
> writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much less
> well known chronicle).
> In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
> connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort, it
> was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.
>
> Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make pantomime
> villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
> exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down.
> Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully, wihout
> leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I
> > need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III
> > Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the
> > reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud
> > at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us
> > achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put
> > forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more
> > harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least
> > the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the
> > idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once,
> > called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the
> > start.
> >
> > I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation
> > either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil incarnate
> > and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an
> > exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@>
> > Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400
> > To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: RE: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, All -
> >
> > My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
> > the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
> > recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
> > (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
> > was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
> > Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.
> >
> > Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
> > operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
> > used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
> > necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
> > Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
> > hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.
> >
> > So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
> > Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
> > about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
> > for sure.
> >
> > 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:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
> > son's
> > > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> > > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
> > pick
> > > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> > > thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> > > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> > > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
> > degree
> > > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> > > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> > > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> > > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> > > some basis in reality.)
> > >
> >
> > I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
> > Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
> > child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
> > opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
> > Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
> > and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
> > her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
> > for more.
> > I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
> > just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
> > evidence.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Johanne,

Margaret Beaufort was an only child - well, sort of; she had half brothers and sisters. She certainly didn't have a sister called Madge.

Marie

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie –
>
> And that shows what a novice I am; if when the name came up "Madge
> Beaufort," y'all meant Margaret and not her sister, I didn't realize it. I
> didn't know that "Madge" was a short form for "Margaret" (and my mother's
> name was Margaret, LOL!). Or were there in fact two Beaufort girls, with
> both being associated with Croyland/Crowland? And if that is so, that does
> suggest some reason for being suspicious of a Beaufort conspiracy. (LOL
> again)
>
>
>
> Personally, I just tend to believe that Richard was not as well versed in
> the promulgation of vicious and nasty rumours about his opponents as they
> were, and thus that in that area he was relatively naïve and not fully
> prepared to fight fire with fire. For which his reputation is still
> suffering to this day. Imho.
>
>
>
> 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 mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:04 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
> sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she
> was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
> neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when
> writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much less
> well known chronicle).
> In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
> connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort, it
> was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.
>
> Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make pantomime
> villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
> exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down.
> Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully, wihout
> leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.
>
> Marie
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdWpp
> cWtnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE5
> Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--?act=reply&messageNum=19
> 684> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Whi
> ch%20book%3F> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20Which%20book%3F> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYnBq
> NXYxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/19467;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2c2RtN3MwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzE5Njg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOAR0cGNJZAMxOTQ2Nw-
> -> Messages in this topic (54)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> ·
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb
> nZicTJ2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> ·
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGt
> rajlrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTM3NzMxMTg-> New Photos 1
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDI3ZWZrB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1Mzc3MzExOA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaTNlajdwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUzNzczMTE4>
> 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
> =19684/stime=1353773118/nc1=4025291/nc2=3848614/nc3=5008814>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Katy -

Keep reading, Katy, and you will see that "Madge Beaufort" and "Margaret
Beaufort" are one and the same. I just didn't realize that Margaret B. was
associated with Croyland as a lay sister, and when Eileen mentioned "Madge
Beaufort," I thought it was Margaret's sister. (Forgive me while I ROFL.)



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 24, 2012 1:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?







--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
> The fact that
> Madge Beaufort was Margaret's sister - that was said more as an indication
> of possible Lancastrian/Tudorian sympathies which might have been held by
> the Croyland friars/monks in general, I think, rather than a slam at
> Margaret herself.
>

Wait, wait...Who is Madge Beaufort? Madge is usually a nickname for
Marjorie/Margery but I don't recall anyone by those names in this period of
history.

I'm so confused....

Katy

Johanne said:

<But before I decide to go to Oxford, I'm going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard's and <Anne's contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard's College!
 
 
 
Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge.  The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college.  (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
 
Liz

Thanks for the suggestion, Liz! I think I could be happy studying almost anywhere in the UK, but Cambridge, with its historic connections with Richard and Anne, would be special. I will check it out forthwith! <smile>



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: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:19 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?





Johanne said:

<But before I decide to go to Oxford, I'm going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard's and <Anne's contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard's College!



Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....

Liz

It's gorgeous and in my (not so) humble opinion, MUCH better than Oxford!
 
Liz


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 20:40
Subject: RE: Re: Which book?

 
Thanks for the suggestion, Liz! I think I could be happy studying almost anywhere in the UK, but Cambridge, with its historic connections with Richard and Anne, would be special. I will check it out forthwith! <smile>

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:19 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?

Johanne said:

<But before I decide to go to Oxford, I'm going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard's and <Anne's contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard's College!



Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....

Liz

Queens' College is the very college that Richard and Anne supported.
Marie

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, Liz! I think I could be happy studying almost anywhere in the UK, but Cambridge, with its historic connections with Richard and Anne, would be special. I will check it out forthwith! <smile>
>
>
>
> 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: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:19 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne said:
>
> <But before I decide to go to Oxford, I’m going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard’s and <Anne’s contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard’s College!
>
>
>
> Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

'Madge' can be a familiar, affectionate term for someone, as can 'Hal',
"Dickon', 'Ned' &c. It can also be used contemptuously (as can 'Hal',
'Dickon', "Ned' &c.) Unless it's a real person who totally hates it and has
asked people not to call her that, 'Madge' ('Hal', 'Dickon', 'Ned' &c) isn't
an insult nor is it an example of name calling.

I'd have thought Madge a diminutive of Marjorie as well, but it seems it
also works for Margaret.

Karen

From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:54:07 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Which book?








--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>
> The fact that
> Madge Beaufort was Margaret's sister - that was said more as an indication
> of possible Lancastrian/Tudorian sympathies which might have been held by
> the Croyland friars/monks in general, I think, rather than a slam at
> Margaret herself.
>

Wait, wait...Who is Madge Beaufort? Madge is usually a nickname for
Marjorie/Margery but I don't recall anyone by those names in this period of
history.

I'm so confused....

Katy

Kings at Cambridge there is no other choice.
George


Sent from my iPad

On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Johanne said:
>
> <But before I decide to go to Oxford, I'm going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard's and <Anne's contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard's College!
>
>
>
> Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>

Marie,

With all respect, you leapt to several conclusions and misunderstandings in
my part of the countess of Warwick discussion. Your responses to some of my
posts were astonishingly personal. The difference is that I have
acknowledged those occasions when I've misunderstood you. You don't offer
the same courtesy. Time and again during that discussion, it was clear to me
that you chose to interpret this or that thing I said in a particular way,
and not in the way it was meant. While this got quite frustrating, I didn't
call you out on it but simply drew a breath and continued the conversation.

The tone here hasn't been set by me, but by others who feel that adopting a
sneering tone towards those who disagree with them is perfectly reasonable.
If calling for more reasoned debate is 'disparaging' then maybe I
misunderstand the word. I think it's more likely that this call has been
misunderstood as 'personal attack'.

I don't recall suggesting that you (or anyone specifically) use the terms
'the Weasel', 'Fat Henry' or 'Mag the Hag' (or it might have been 'Mag the
Nag', not that the subtle difference much matters). If you don't like those
terms being used, then perhaps you could agree with me rather than finding
(yet again) another reason to disagree and chastise me. It's beginning to
look like a kneejerk reaction to my posts. And is 'attempting to get to know
where [people] are coming from' a one-way street? The pasting I see some
Ricardians receive (whether Society members or not) at the hands of those
with traditionalist views, or are neutral or even sympathetic to Richard
(but not devoted), is disturbing. The tone is often set, here and elsewhere,
by the use of disparaging names. Just as I can't take a non-Ricardian
seriously when they refer to him as 'Uncle Dickie' or 'Crookback', there are
those who can't take Ricardians seriously when they start with 'the Weasel'
or 'Mag the Hag/Nag'.

The misunderstanding here is that this isn't about anyone on a personal
level, it's about the level of debate. Somehow I doubt that this
misunderstanding will be acknowledged.

Karen


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:12:15 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Which book?






Karen,

With all due respect, you have leapt to several such misunderstandings of my
posts. It makes it hard for me to stay on this forum when time and again
what I have written is misrepresented to make me look like an unthinking
twit. There, I've said it.

For what it's worth I don't like use of terms like 'Weasel' and 'Fat Henry'
either, and I've NEVER used them. NO ONE on this forum has used 'Mag the
Hag', a point that has been made to you by two other members already, but
yet you have since that brought again it up again!

I would much rather someone take a knee-jerk disparaging view of figures
from history than do the same to people they're actually sharing the forum
with so let us all please treat other members of the forum as individuals
and make an attempt to get to know where they're coming from and address
only what they have actually posted, making clear exactly who and what we
are taking issue with.

Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
>
> I clearly misunderstood your 'guess who??' post as being yet another example
> of the Margaret Beaufort Conspiracy. It was the unfortunate catalyst for my
> request that we don't make pantomime villains out of some of Richard's
> contemporaries.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:03:36 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> I think it was myself who pointed out that Margaret Beaufort was a lay
> sister of Crowland Abbey - by which I in no way meant to suggest that she
> was the author of the chronicle, just that with her as a patron and
> neighbour (at Deeping) the abbey had its own political considerations when
> writing its chronicle (just as Tewkesbury Abbey had in writing its much less
> well known chronicle).
> In fact, if you would like to know who first alerted me to the possible
> connection between Crowland's account of Bosworth and Margaret Beaufort, it
> was that rabid Ricardian Michael Hicks.
>
> Just as it doesn't help the reassessment of Richard's life to make pantomime
> villains out of some of his contemporaries instead, it doesn't help to
> exaggerate other people's views on this forum in order to knock them down.
> Please be careful to read people's posts carefully and thoughtfully, wihout
> leaping to prejudiced conclusions, and then we can all get on.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > I'm not talking specifically about this thread, but more generally. Maybe I
> > need to be more explicit about this. The stated aim of the Richard III
> > Society and Ricardians in general is to reclaim (to varying degrees) the
> > reputation of Richard III. To attempt to do this by flinging undeserved mud
> > at other people (and I mentioned a few) not only doesn't help any of us
> > achieve this aim, it's counterproductive. It damages any argument we put
> > forward. To be even more explicit: It does the cause of Richard III more
> > harm than good. The suggestion that Margaret Beaufort was behind at least
> > the Croyland part of this purported 'propaganda machine' is just part of the
> > idea that she was some evil scheming hag (and she has been, more than once,
> > called "Mag the Hag') manipulating events from behind the scenes from the
> > start.
> >
> > I don't think it's necessary to defend Margaret Beaufort's reputation
> > either. I also don't think it necessary to suggest she was evil incarnate
> > and deserved to be locked in a dark, airless room. I do think it an
> > exceedingly good idea to discuss her (and everyone else) in more even tones.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@>
> > Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:52:42 -0400
> > To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Subject: RE: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, All -
> >
> > My two farthings again - I didn't hear anyone call Margaret Beaufort "Mag
> > the Hag" here. Her name was not mentioned in this thread (at least
> > recently). It was mentioned that "someone's sister" was a nun at Crowland
> > (or Croyland, in them thar days), namely Madge Beaufort - and then there
> > was the suggestion that it was Morton who was the Croyland chronicler, not
> > Margaret or Madge, either, for that matter.
> >
> > Then Ishita said that there was quite an effective propaganda machine
> > operating against Richard. And it seems to me that that is true - that as we
> > used to say in the Navy, "Rumour control runs rampant." Not again,
> > necessarily Margaret - maybe it was a network of those daft bishops that
> > Chesterton referred to in the excerpt that I posted, plus the Woodvilles
> > hangers-on and the Lancastrian sympathizers.
> >
> > So, I don't think it's really necessary to try to do too much to defend
> > Margaret Beaufort's reputation. I certainly didn't take the earlier emails
> > about Tydder's propaganda machine as being a personal attack on her, that's
> > for sure.
> >
> > 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:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:30 PM
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Which book?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
> > <Ragged_staff@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > > I don't doubt for a moment that Margaret was involved somehow with her
> > son's
> > > (and husband's) business. There's just this image of her sitting like a
> > > spider in a web, controlling everyone and everything around her that I
> > pick
> > > up every now and then. And the casual villefication, 'Mag the Hag' sort of
> > > thing. The gleeful rubbing of hands to think of what Richard 'should have
> > > done with her' had he survived Bosworth. I get that we're all wanting
> > > Richard's reputation out there to be cleaned up, some of to a greater
> > degree
> > > than others. What I don't get is the eagerness to make accusations against
> > > people like Margaret Beaufort, that she murdered the princes, poisoned
> > > Edward of Middleham and the like, on nothing but hope, hate and wild
> > > speculation. (Again, speculation is hugely important, but it should have
> > > some basis in reality.)
> > >
> >
> > I do so agree. She does seem to have been very politically active during
> > Richard's reign, but she was a mother and was doing it on behalf of her only
> > child. After a generation of civil war there were just people stuck on
> > opposite sides of the fence, and that was that.
> > Margaret Beaufort had a lot of faults - she seems to have been controlling
> > and tight-fisted, and possibly a hard landlord - but she was also loyal to
> > her servants and genuinely seems to have loved children and probably longed
> > for more.
> > I agree, it's not fair to try to absolve Richard of murdering the Princes
> > just by foisting the blame on to someone else against whom there is no
> > evidence.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Katy -
>
> Keep reading, Katy, and you will see that "Madge Beaufort" and "Margaret
> Beaufort" are one and the same. I just didn't realize that Margaret B. was
> associated with Croyland as a lay sister, and when Eileen mentioned "Madge
> Beaufort," I thought it was Margaret's sister. (Forgive me while I ROFL.)



I get confused enough when the proper names and titles are used, let alone anachronistic nicknames. Maybe I should make myself a chart.

Katy

Doug wrote:

"Right from the start", no. She DID give Richard about a month and then
began plotting with Hastings, Morton et al, in keeping Edward (V) on the
throne. Or allowed herself to be used as cover for her husband's
participation in those activities.

One of the things I do when in doubt about Richard's actions in any given
context is remove him from the picture, change the names but leave the
'facts' in place. It has helped me hugely to sort things out in my mind.
When applied to the Hastings case, I end up with no treasonous plotting and
his death being completely unjustified and unjustifiable. Kind of 'if it
wasn't Richard who did this, but someone else' exercise. What I end up with
is a man (in real life, Hastings) concerned that the coronation of the young
king who has his loyalty is being delayed, worrying that another man (in
real life, Richard) who has already got rid of a potential rival, has no
intentions of having the young king crowned. Considering that at this point,
the young king (in real life, Edward V) is still the rightful king, the
first man's actions can't be considered treason. Even if he does pull out a
sword and assassinate the other man, it's still not treason (murder, yes),
as he was acting in the interests and on behalf of the rightful king. Up
till the point that parliament bars him from the succession, 'plotting' to
keep Edward V on the throne is the opposite of treason. To me, that's the
key point, what was Hastings attempting to do? If it was to get rid of
Richard and have someone other than Edward V take the throne, then that
would absolutely be treason. Getting rid of Richard (or anyone else) to
keep Edward V on the throne, at that point in time, isn't.

Karen

Reading the websites for the colleges, it appears that Kings' College was supported by Richard in his own right, and Queens' College was supported by Richard in right of Anne.



<sigh>



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 George Butterfield
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?





Kings at Cambridge there is no other choice.
George

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@... <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> > wrote:

> Johanne said:
>
> <But before I decide to go to Oxford, I'm going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard's and <Anne's contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard's College!
>
>
>
> Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>

But on the other hand, if the boys (and girls) are illegitimate and cannot
be legitimated, Richard is next in line for the throne - legitimately.



Richard was named Protector (although the will has not been found, no one
ever suggested that he wasn't named Protector, as far as I know), but the
Woodvilles didn't notify him of that fact. Treason?



That's where I believe Richard's sense of duty and propriety took over. I
believe that had he had his druthers, he would have preferred to stay in the
North "poddling about" - but he had a duty to attend to the boys, which he
did.



Since we don't know what happened at that meeting, it could have been more
or less an overt plot. I think it must have been quite extreme for Richard
to react the way he did. But life was much simpler for Richard before Edward
IV died.



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: Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:46 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?





Doug wrote:

"Right from the start", no. She DID give Richard about a month and then
began plotting with Hastings, Morton et al, in keeping Edward (V) on the
throne. Or allowed herself to be used as cover for her husband's
participation in those activities.

One of the things I do when in doubt about Richard's actions in any given
context is remove him from the picture, change the names but leave the
'facts' in place. It has helped me hugely to sort things out in my mind.
When applied to the Hastings case, I end up with no treasonous plotting and
his death being completely unjustified and unjustifiable. Kind of 'if it
wasn't Richard who did this, but someone else' exercise. What I end up with
is a man (in real life, Hastings) concerned that the coronation of the young
king who has his loyalty is being delayed, worrying that another man (in
real life, Richard) who has already got rid of a potential rival, has no
intentions of having the young king crowned. Considering that at this point,
the young king (in real life, Edward V) is still the rightful king, the
first man's actions can't be considered treason. Even if he does pull out a
sword and assassinate the other man, it's still not treason (murder, yes),
as he was acting in the interests and on behalf of the rightful king. Up
till the point that parliament bars him from the succession, 'plotting' to
keep Edward V on the throne is the opposite of treason. To me, that's the
key point, what was Hastings attempting to do? If it was to get rid of
Richard and have someone other than Edward V take the throne, then that
would absolutely be treason. Getting rid of Richard (or anyone else) to
keep Edward V on the throne, at that point in time, isn't.

Karen

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 23:17
Subject: Re: Which book?

 
Queens' College is the very college that Richard and Anne supported.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, Liz! I think I could be happy studying almost anywhere in the UK, but Cambridge, with its historic connections with Richard and Anne, would be special. I will check it out forthwith! <smile>
>
>
>
> 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 liz williams
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:19 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne said:
>
> <But before I decide to go to Oxford, Iâ¬"m going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richardâ¬"s and <Anneâ¬"s contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richardâ¬"s College!
>
>
>
> Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, not sure what happened there. I didn;t mean to send anything!



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012, 11:55
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?

 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 23:17
Subject: Re: Which book?

 
Queens' College is the very college that Richard and Anne supported.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, Liz! I think I could be happy studying almost anywhere in the UK, but Cambridge, with its historic connections with Richard and Anne, would be special. I will check it out forthwith! <smile>
>
>
>
> 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 liz williams
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 4:19 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne said:
>
> <But before I decide to go to Oxford, Iâ¬"m going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richardâ¬"s and <Anneâ¬"s contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richardâ¬"s College!
>
>
>
> Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You could try this one, with a strong connection to Richard's sister-in-law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi_College,_Cambridge

Not sure my revision about JA-H's book will last;)

----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Which book?



Reading the websites for the colleges, it appears that Kings' College was supported by Richard in his own right, and Queens' College was supported by Richard in right of Anne.

<sigh>

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 George Butterfield
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Which book?

Kings at Cambridge there is no other choice.
George

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@... <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> > wrote:

> Johanne said:
>
> <But before I decide to go to Oxford, I'm going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard's and <Anne's contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard's College!
>
>
>
> Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
>
> Liz
>
>
>
>

No. King's was founded by Henry VI and remained almost unbuilt until Henry VII recommenced it.

If you want a university associated with RIII try Leicester, York, Durham, UEA, Essex...

Cambridge???? "LMAO" etc.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Reading the websites for the colleges, it appears that Kings’ College was supported by Richard in his own right, and Queens’ College was supported by Richard in right of Anne.
>
>
>
> <sigh>
>
>
>
> 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 George Butterfield
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:34 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> Kings at Cambridge there is no other choice.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@... <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> > wrote:
>
> > Johanne said:
> >
> > <But before I decide to go to Oxford, I’m going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard’s and <Anne’s contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard’s College!
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

As for Queen's....?! Founded by Margaret of Anjou?!?!

"ROFLLMAO" etc.

--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> No. King's was founded by Henry VI and remained almost unbuilt until Henry VII recommenced it.
>
> If you want a university associated with RIII try Leicester, York, Durham, UEA, Essex...
>
> Cambridge???? "LMAO" etc.
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Reading the websites for the colleges, it appears that Kings’ College was supported by Richard in his own right, and Queens’ College was supported by Richard in right of Anne.
> >
> >
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 George Butterfield
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:34 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kings at Cambridge there is no other choice.
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@ <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > Johanne said:
> > >
> > > <But before I decide to go to Oxford, I’m going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard’s and <Anne’s contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard’s College!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Kings' College was founded by Henry VI, but Richard contributed substantially to the completion of the magnificent chapel. Here is part of the College history at http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/about/history.html :

On his new site east of the river, King Henry planned three domestic ranges closing up to one another and, on the north side, to the Chapel, to form the new court. Between the Chapel and the river there was to be a cloistered cemetery and a bell tower. He laid the foundation stone of the Chapel in 1446; but the work came to a standstill, when he was deposed in 1461, with the Chapel only about 60 feet high at the east end sloping away to about six at the west, and still temporarily roofed. The Founder's stonework in the Chapel is recognisable by being white (magnesium limestone from Yorkshire), while later work is in Northamptonshire sandstone. Only the east range of the domestic buildings was begun; its foundations are still there under the lawn and can be seen in very dry summers.

Work on the Chapel was resumed in 1476, and by 1485, with the help of contributions from Edward IV and Richard III (rather surprisingly as both were Yorkists), the five eastern bays had been built and roofed. Then the work stopped again until 1508, when Henry VII provided funds and promised to see the Chapel finished. The fabric with its superb fan vaults was completed after his death, in 1515; by 1544 it had been fitted out for use, largely at the expense of Henry VIII who gave the magnificent windows, the rood screen (on which the organ was placed after the Restoration) and the stalls in the Choir. In 1961 Rubens' painting of The Adoration of the Magi was presented by the late Major A. E. Allnatt and the east end of the Chapel was radically altered to house it.

I would definitely be willing to consider any college or university which mentions Richard and/or Anne on their website. Of course, I would also consider the other schools you mention. I had looked at Leicester a while ago and as I recall they don't offer graduate studies in Theology. Although I am torn between that and a focus on 15th. c. history. But I figure that I can perhaps combine them by studying ecclesiastical history of the later Middle Ages in England. I hear it's quite an interesting period! <smile>

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 blancsanglier1452
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Which book?





No. King's was founded by Henry VI and remained almost unbuilt until Henry VII recommenced it.

If you want a university associated with RIII try Leicester, York, Durham, UEA, Essex...

Cambridge???? "LMAO" etc.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Reading the websites for the colleges, it appears that Kingsâ¬" College was supported by Richard in his own right, and Queensâ¬" College was supported by Richard in right of Anne.
>
>
>
> <sigh>
>
>
>
> 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 George Butterfield
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:34 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> Kings at Cambridge there is no other choice.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@... <mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...%20%3cmailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> > wrote:
>
> > Johanne said:
> >
> > <But before I decide to go to Oxford, Iâ¬"m going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richardâ¬"s and <Anneâ¬"s contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richardâ¬"s College!
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
> >
> > Liz
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

By the nature of patronage you'd be hard put to find an institution NOT benefiting from his (or any other) aid.

I think the University of Walsall (formerly: World of Carpets, Wolverhampton), motto- 'Where Is Thy God, Priest?' is what you're looking for.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Kings’ College was founded by Henry VI, but Richard contributed substantially to the completion of the magnificent chapel. Here is part of the College history at http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/about/history.html :
>
> “On his new site east of the river, King Henry planned three domestic ranges closing up to one another and, on the north side, to the Chapel, to form the new court. Between the Chapel and the river there was to be a cloistered cemetery and a bell tower. He laid the foundation stone of the Chapel in 1446; but the work came to a standstill, when he was deposed in 1461, with the Chapel only about 60 feet high at the east end sloping away to about six at the west, and still temporarily roofed. The Founder's stonework in the Chapel is recognisable by being white (magnesium limestone from Yorkshire), while later work is in Northamptonshire sandstone. Only the east range of the domestic buildings was begun; its foundations are still there under the lawn and can be seen in very dry summers.
>
> “Work on the Chapel was resumed in 1476, and by 1485, with the help of contributions from Edward IV and Richard III (rather surprisingly as both were Yorkists), the five eastern bays had been built and roofed. Then the work stopped again until 1508, when Henry VII provided funds and promised to see the Chapel finished. The fabric with its superb fan vaults was completed after his death, in 1515; by 1544 it had been fitted out for use, largely at the expense of Henry VIII who gave the magnificent windows, the rood screen (on which the organ was placed after the Restoration) and the stalls in the Choir. In 1961 Rubens' painting of The Adoration of the Magi was presented by the late Major A. E. Allnatt and the east end of the Chapel was radically altered to house it.”
>
> I would definitely be willing to consider any college or university which mentions Richard and/or Anne on their website. Of course, I would also consider the other schools you mention. I had looked at Leicester a while ago and as I recall they don’t offer graduate studies in Theology. Although I am torn between that and a focus on 15th. c. history. But I figure that I can perhaps combine them by studying ecclesiastical history of the later Middle Ages in England. I hear it’s quite an interesting period! <smile>
>
> 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 blancsanglier1452
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:16 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Which book?
>
>
>
>
>
> No. King's was founded by Henry VI and remained almost unbuilt until Henry VII recommenced it.
>
> If you want a university associated with RIII try Leicester, York, Durham, UEA, Essex...
>
> Cambridge???? "LMAO" etc.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Reading the websites for the colleges, it appears that Kings’ College was supported by Richard in his own right, and Queens’ College was supported by Richard in right of Anne.
> >
> >
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 George Butterfield
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:34 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Which book?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kings at Cambridge there is no other choice.
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2012, at 3:19 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@ <mailto:ferrymansdaughter@%20%3cmailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > Johanne said:
> > >
> > > <But before I decide to go to Oxford, I’m going to check out Cambridge and see if there are any living residues of Richard’s and <Anne’s contributions to that university. It would be great to be able to be a member of the King Richard’s College!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne, if I were you I'd take a look at Queens' Cambridge. The York.Lancaster history is very interesting and it's a beautiful college. (I'm slightly biased but you can disregard that ....
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>