Royal Blood

Hew wrote:

If you can , consider reading Royal Blood by Betram
Fields

****

Thanks for the recommendation! I have read it, and
Fields' arguments made sense to me until I got to the
last sentence of the book. That surprised and puzzled
me. At present, I'm considering the possibility that
it's ironic, but I'm like to hear other opinions.

I don't have the book at hand, so I can't quote it
exactly. But the sense of the last sentence was that
history would have evolved very differently if Richard
had gone peacefully to dinner with his "friend"
Rivers.

I re-read the parts of the book indexed under "Rivers"
and I couldn't find anything to support the word
"friend." I can't remember reading anywhere else that
Rivers was especially friendly with Richard. I do
remember reading that Francis Lovell was Richard's
friend. I'm having an attack of literal-mindedness
here. I can see the possibility of a more flexible
interpretation, but I'm really not sure what to make
of it.

What does that last sentence mean? Why would Fields
end his book that way?

TIA

Marion


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Hew wrote: if he had been naýve enough to trust in
rivers then English and thus world history would have
been different Many Many possibilities

***

When I know the details of Richard's life better, I'd
like to try my own version of Fields' Epilogue. Not
for publication, just to give my mind some exercise.

I've given some thought to how much better it might
have been for Richard if he could have gone to fight
the Turks right after Edward married Elizabeth
Woodville. But it's unlikely that Edward would have
allowed Richard to leave because he needed his
support. I can't help thinking Richard might have had
a better death on the borders of Turkey.

At least his memory wouldn't have suffered at the
hands of the Tudors. And the first actor to play
Shakespeare's Richard III wouldn't have suffered
through such a demanding role. I believe he
threatened to kill Shakespeare if he ever wrote him
another role as demanding.

***

King Edward v would have reigned and this would have
made a difference
no matter if he was a good king or not
Buckingham still may have had his rebellion and it may
have worked this
time if the royal family continued to anoy the
nobility
It is even possible that tudor would have made a claim
for the throne
Richard most probably would have either been killed or
threatened with death

***

That's what happened to the Duke of Gloucester who
served as protector to Henry VI. He was arrested, and
the official version said he died of a "stroke." The
book I read didn't say if it was a sword stroke or an
axe stroke or a mallet ...

***

It is even possible that a rebellion would have been
launched by the
nobles to put Richard on the throne [if he was still
alive}

***

That would depend on how quickly the rebellion was
launched. No telling how long Richard could have
survived as Protector. But some people feel his life
wasn't in danger.

***

As far as the term friend I have not found an
active hostility between the two men and I guess
Richard would have had to consider rivers a
"friend" to accepth his excuses and continue to London
with him
Hope this helps
ps how do you spell accept?

***

When I'm using a pencil, "accept." But when I'm
typing, especially in a hurry, the keyboard decides.
<g>

Marion


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Tim wrote: ýI would be wary of reading too much into
Fieldsý book.ý

****
I think Iýve been cautious about it. The title warned
me that I might need a pinch of salt with the text.
But I wanted to know what a practicing lawyer had to
say. I feel he said it clearly and fairly. Nothing
seemed as unbalanced to me as the claim that Richard
is like Herod. But I see all this through late
20th/early 21st century eyes. Understanding 15th
century thinking doesnýt come easily to me. At least,
not yet.

****

ýýhis unnecessary ýWhat ifsý at the end show all to
obviously that the author has a lack of understanding
of real politics in the period ýý

****

Since they were separated from the main part of the
book, and clearly identified as ýWhat ifs,ý I donýt
see any harm in them. I took them as a thought
experiment, not statements of fact. I hope most
readers can see the difference.

I find politics of any period hard to understand. I
see plenty of disagreement in any era Iýve ever read
about. The best I can hope for is to read as much as
I can and make my best effort at understanding it.

Marion


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Marie wrote: ýNow we come to perhaps what worried
Marion ýý

****

Thatýs what worries me. Thatýs a good description of
what I see. And the text close by says: ýThe point
has been well made that, contrary to certain
influential sociological theories, children were as
cherished as loved in medieval times as in any other.ý

That looks like a huge contradiction to me. It makes
me doubt A. J. Pollardýs criticisms of Richard. He
doesnýt give credit to Phillip Aires or Barbara
Hanawalt, although he seems to be referring to their
work. There are no footnotes in this paragraph, no
sources given. So Pollardýs statements leave me with
doubts.

Nicholas Ormeýs ýMedieval Childrený is much more
convincing. The illustration of Herodýs ýSlaughter of
the Innocentsý shows a mother trying to protect her
son. There is no contradiction between text and
illustration.

Thanks for your interpretation of this illustration,
Marie. My late 20th/early 21st century eyes still
find it disturbing. But you've helped me understand
why 15th century viewers wouldnýt see it that way.

Marion




__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com