Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Royal Blood

Very Interesting thought
The Outterman empire could have really used him about 300 years earlier It
could have made a huge difference
thanks for the idea
hew


----- Original Message -----
From: "marion davis" <phaecilia@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Royal Blood


> Hew wrote: if he had been naïve 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
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

I would be wary of reading too much into Fields book. It has numerous
problems with it and quite frankly his unnecessary "What ifs" at the end
show all too obviously that the author has a lack of understanding of real
politics in the period seeing as they are widely implausible.



----- Original Message -----
From: "marion davis" <phaecilia@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:05 PM
Subject: RE: Royal Blood


> Hew wrote: if he had been naïve 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
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> I would be wary of reading too much into Fields book. It has
numerous
> problems with it and quite frankly his unnecessary "What ifs" at
the end
> show all too obviously that the author has a lack of understanding
of real
> politics in the period seeing as they are widely implausible.
>
>
> Problem as I see it, Tim, is that there isn't a isn't a single book
on the Princes in the Tower that doesn't 'have numerous problems with
it'. Possibly one of the problems is that sensationalist publishers
want books that claim to "solve the mystery". However, I do feel it
is better than the ones by Alison Weir, Elizabeth Jenkins or Audrey
Williamson.

Off the subject entirely, I seem to remember Marion was worrying
about an illustration of the Slaughter of the Innocents in Tony
Pollard's book. It is an illustration from a MS, and shows a seated
woman with small male child (perhaps 12-18 months) standing on her
lap. She has one hand open around the side of the child's waist, and
the other round his left ankle (baby's left foot is standing on her
knee). One of Herod's men has the baby's right foot, which is lifted
behind it, in his left hand, and is stabbing baby in the thigh with
sword held in his other hand. The baby's right hand is on the
mother's shoulder.
Now we come to what perhaps worried Marion. The woman is looking at
the soldier apparently quite calmly and does not appear to be
struggling to protect her baby. In fact it could be interpreted that
the hand on its stomach is pushing him towards the soldier. It looks
perhaps as though the baby has grabbed his mother's shoulder to
resist being pulled away and she is not helping him.
However,this is not how I saw the painting at first, nor how I
believe it was meant to be interpreted, or would have been
interpreted by any contemporary. It would just be an aide memoir for
people who already knew the story of the Slaughter of the Innocents.
These illustrations did not aim at realism as we would understand it -
they were symbolic, and did not make use of techniques which would
give proper impression of perspective or impression of movement and
muscle use. Everyone at the time 'knew', from mystery plays, etc, how
the mothers suffered and were unable to protect their babies. What
the illustriation is surely trying to show is that the mother had
been cuddling baby upright on her lap, her arm round his waist and
his arm round her neck, but the soldier is pulling him away from her,
his arm is slipping from her shoulder. She looks at the soldier
pleadingly, she tries to hold on to her baby, grasping an ankle with
one hand, the baby's waist with the other, but she is not strong
enough.....
Marie

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marion davis" <phaecilia@y...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Royal Blood
>
>
> > Hew wrote: if he had been naïve 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
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

Hi Marie

I'm interested to hear what the failing of Audrey Williamson's book
is as far as you're concerned.

For it was certainly a classic of its time (and agree it does belong
to the 1970s in terms of its interpretion of certain events), and the
author was well-respected and knowledgeable. Admittedly, it's a while
since I read it, but I'm pretty sure it put a far more more logical
case forward that the murder was a 'supposed' one than Fields does,
although I suspect Fields' primary concern was just to refute
everything that La Weir writes <g>. I agree that from our 21stC
standpoint, its interpretion of certain events has been superceded as
new evidence has been discovered and subjected to peer review, but it
was a major addition to the Ricardian canon of work when it was first
published, IIRC. Absorbing, thought-provoking and utterly readable.
More importantly, her almost sidebar anecdotal reference to Tyrrel and
Gipping has me reaching for the old maps and realising that Tyrrel and
Howard together, sailors both, *could* have had the Princes away from
London to safety very easily and discreetly. The first time I had
ever had an alternative scenario to the 'they were all at Sheriff
Hutton' scenario beloved of some Ricardians.

Lorraine

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
> wrote:
> > I would be wary of reading too much into Fields book. It has
> numerous
> > problems with it and quite frankly his unnecessary "What ifs" at
> the end
> > show all too obviously that the author has a lack of understanding
> of real
> > politics in the period seeing as they are widely implausible.
> >
> >
> > Problem as I see it, Tim, is that there isn't a isn't a single
book
> on the Princes in the Tower that doesn't 'have numerous problems
with
> it'. Possibly one of the problems is that sensationalist publishers
> want books that claim to "solve the mystery". However, I do feel it
> is better than the ones by Alison Weir, Elizabeth Jenkins or Audrey
> Williamson.
>
> Off the subject entirely, I seem to remember Marion was worrying
> about an illustration of the Slaughter of the Innocents in Tony
> Pollard's book. It is an illustration from a MS, and shows a seated
> woman with small male child (perhaps 12-18 months) standing on her
> lap. She has one hand open around the side of the child's waist, and
> the other round his left ankle (baby's left foot is standing on her
> knee). One of Herod's men has the baby's right foot, which is lifted
> behind it, in his left hand, and is stabbing baby in the thigh with
> sword held in his other hand. The baby's right hand is on the
> mother's shoulder.
> Now we come to what perhaps worried Marion. The woman is looking at
> the soldier apparently quite calmly and does not appear to be
> struggling to protect her baby. In fact it could be interpreted that
> the hand on its stomach is pushing him towards the soldier. It looks
> perhaps as though the baby has grabbed his mother's shoulder to
> resist being pulled away and she is not helping him.
> However,this is not how I saw the painting at first, nor how I
> believe it was meant to be interpreted, or would have been
> interpreted by any contemporary. It would just be an aide memoir for
> people who already knew the story of the Slaughter of the Innocents.
> These illustrations did not aim at realism as we would understand it
-
> they were symbolic, and did not make use of techniques which would
> give proper impression of perspective or impression of movement and
> muscle use. Everyone at the time 'knew', from mystery plays, etc,
how
> the mothers suffered and were unable to protect their babies. What
> the illustriation is surely trying to show is that the mother had
> been cuddling baby upright on her lap, her arm round his waist and
> his arm round her neck, but the soldier is pulling him away from
her,
> his arm is slipping from her shoulder. She looks at the soldier
> pleadingly, she tries to hold on to her baby, grasping an ankle with
> one hand, the baby's waist with the other, but she is not strong
> enough.....
> Marie
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "marion davis" <phaecilia@y...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:05 PM
> > Subject: RE: Royal Blood
> >
> >
> > > Hew wrote: if he had been naïve 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
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >

Briefly Marie - of course most of the books are indeed of that type which is
why over reliance on any of them can be a bit risky. Unfortunately I
haven't got my copy of Field's to hand other wise I would cite chapter and
verse (and probably bore everyone rigid) with some of "my problems" with the
work.

As Lorraine mentioned his main aim does appear to be to refute Weir the
problem with that is that I suspect he applies an excellent legal brain to
tackling her arguements (which given their weakness in places don't need
much countering) without actually applying it to his own arguements.

To be honest its no worse than many similar works on Richard and the
Prince's.

My main issue is his "what if's" which actually show how weak he really is
in his understanding of medieval politics. They are largely niaive and
ignore some blatant political realities. Firstly had Edward V lived and
reigned then there is little question that England's reaction to the Treaty
of Arras (which was the end of Edward IV's dynastic ambitions with its
marriage proposal between Margaret Hapsburg and the Dauphin Charles - though
its worth remembering that the treaty was made in direct opposition to
wishes of the widower Maximilian - the Burgundian estates having taken
matters into their own hands on the death of Mary of Burgundy) may have been
much more serious than it was at the time, he also ignores the likely result
and English reaction to the Breton Succession Crisis (which Henry VII was
largely incapable of responding to - seeing as he had no obvious candidate
to offer the Breton's as a husband to the Duchess Anne nor the political
strength to stand against France).

Art and the use of language are often open to misinterpretation or rather
are open to whatever interpretation we would like to see put upon . However
my problem with Fields and Kendall and Weir is principally their ability to
interprate evidence in a way that supports their overall premise
irrespective of what alternative theories that evidence may support.





----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Royal Blood


--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> I would be wary of reading too much into Fields book. It has
numerous
> problems with it and quite frankly his unnecessary "What ifs" at
the end
> show all too obviously that the author has a lack of understanding
of real
> politics in the period seeing as they are widely implausible.
>
>
> Problem as I see it, Tim, is that there isn't a isn't a single book
on the Princes in the Tower that doesn't 'have numerous problems with
it'. Possibly one of the problems is that sensationalist publishers
want books that claim to "solve the mystery". However, I do feel it
is better than the ones by Alison Weir, Elizabeth Jenkins or Audrey
Williamson.

Off the subject entirely, I seem to remember Marion was worrying
about an illustration of the Slaughter of the Innocents in Tony
Pollard's book. It is an illustration from a MS, and shows a seated
woman with small male child (perhaps 12-18 months) standing on her
lap. She has one hand open around the side of the child's waist, and
the other round his left ankle (baby's left foot is standing on her
knee). One of Herod's men has the baby's right foot, which is lifted
behind it, in his left hand, and is stabbing baby in the thigh with
sword held in his other hand. The baby's right hand is on the
mother's shoulder.
Now we come to what perhaps worried Marion. The woman is looking at
the soldier apparently quite calmly and does not appear to be
struggling to protect her baby. In fact it could be interpreted that
the hand on its stomach is pushing him towards the soldier. It looks
perhaps as though the baby has grabbed his mother's shoulder to
resist being pulled away and she is not helping him.
However,this is not how I saw the painting at first, nor how I
believe it was meant to be interpreted, or would have been
interpreted by any contemporary. It would just be an aide memoir for
people who already knew the story of the Slaughter of the Innocents.
These illustrations did not aim at realism as we would understand it -
they were symbolic, and did not make use of techniques which would
give proper impression of perspective or impression of movement and
muscle use. Everyone at the time 'knew', from mystery plays, etc, how
the mothers suffered and were unable to protect their babies. What
the illustriation is surely trying to show is that the mother had
been cuddling baby upright on her lap, her arm round his waist and
his arm round her neck, but the soldier is pulling him away from her,
his arm is slipping from her shoulder. She looks at the soldier
pleadingly, she tries to hold on to her baby, grasping an ankle with
one hand, the baby's waist with the other, but she is not strong
enough.....
Marie

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marion davis" <phaecilia@y...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Royal Blood
>
>
> > Hew wrote: if he had been naïve 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
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi Marie
>
> I'm interested to hear what the failing of Audrey Williamson's book
> is as far as you're concerned.
>
> For it was certainly a classic of its time (and agree it does
belong
> to the 1970s in terms of its interpretion of certain events), and
the
> author was well-respected and knowledgeable. Admittedly, it's a
while
> since I read it, but I'm pretty sure it put a far more more logical
> case forward that the murder was a 'supposed' one than Fields does,
> although I suspect Fields' primary concern was just to refute
> everything that La Weir writes <g>. I agree that from our 21stC
> standpoint, its interpretion of certain events has been superceded
as
> new evidence has been discovered and subjected to peer review, but
it
> was a major addition to the Ricardian canon of work when it was
first
> published, IIRC. Absorbing, thought-provoking and utterly
readable.
> More importantly, her almost sidebar anecdotal reference to Tyrrel
and
> Gipping has me reaching for the old maps and realising that Tyrrel
and
> Howard together, sailors both, *could* have had the Princes away
from
> London to safety very easily and discreetly. The first time I had
> ever had an alternative scenario to the 'they were all at Sheriff
> Hutton' scenario beloved of some Ricardians.
>
> Lorraine

Hi Lorraine.

Oh dear! It's amazing what heat a little off-the-cuff comment can
generate. I repeat that I don't think a definitive book on the
Princes has yet been written. Probably by definition impossible as it
always seems to generate so much heat. So what are my problems with
Audrey Williamson'a book?
I too write not having read any of these books since they were first
published, and I think it is probably fair to say that our reactions
have as much to do with our own state of
mind/knowledge/preoccupations are at the time of reading, and our own
prejudices, as they do with the case being presented. I've pulled my
copy of AW's book off my shelf & thumbed through it again to refresh
my memory.

Actually, I was very much looking forward to reading Audrey's book as
I am not a traditionalist and there definitely seemed to be a need
for a really questioning book on the subject. I like you found the
book exciting, but didn't feel it was one I cold recomnmend to an
outsider to the subject as a grounding. She was indeed extremely
knowledgeable, but I felt she let her case down unnecessarily by her
style of argument.
First disappointment. You call the book readable - and so it is,
after one gets past page 2. I think it was David who called himself
anal in an earlier message. And here I must admit that in 1978 I was
the worst anal type of all - a full-time technical editor (you may
find this surprising given the state of my messages). The book needed
a good edit! I found myself rereading sentences, my pencil all over
the place. The standard of writing did get better, but
the 'grammaticals'left an amateurish impression that I feared would
harm Ms Williamson's case. I assumed Alan Sutton (publishers) were to
blame, but I later read that Ms Williamson had refused to allow them
to edit her work. Looking at the book again, many years from my
editorial incarnation, I don't find the English quite so offensive;
however, I read reviews making the same complaint so I wasn't alone.
I haven't kept my old Ricardian Bulletins, but I do seem to recall
correspondence in them involving Audrey Williamson thatleft me with
the impression she was not an open-minded individual. It was many
years ago now, and I may be wrong, but this cast a retrospective
shadow on my memories of the book.
I also have a problem with her tendency to enlist any source that
suits her argument. Having dismissed the Tudor sources early on, she
then quotes them whenever it suits her case, arguing that since their
intentions are hostile when they say something favourable to Richard
it must be true. It's a fair point, perhaps, but must cause readers
to wonder if other things they said might not be true as well. Also
an over-reliance on Buck quoting from docs that are no longer extant.
And I was a little irritated at her rehashing the Countess of Desmond
story, backing it up with Horace Walpole's "corroboration" even
though her own words suggest she knows quite well there is a problem
with the dates.

I was also uneasy with her frequent references to spies and agents.
She may have a case, but again it could leave an impression of a
credulous conspiracy-theorist.

Tendency to assume a position and then give the arguments in support
of it afterwards - viz, the precontract story, Hastings' treachery.

But the main problem for me was that she relied over-heavily on the
Tyrrell family tradition. Understandable. It was exciting to read
about and must have been even more exciting to discover personally.
However, without corroborative evidence, a story handed down
verbally, and picked up hundreds of years after the events it claims
to describe, cannot be regarded as anything more than a tantalising
curiosity. It's not that I dismiss family traditions. Some families
hand down information with remarkable accuracy over many generations.
Others garble things up almost straight away. It certainly is
tantalising, but that's all. Which is why it's not really been taken
up seriously by anyone else so far as I'm aware.

As regards Joe Public with no prior interest in the period, most such
would start by assuming the old wicked uncle story, whether they had
it from school or Shakespeare. It takes quite a lot to shift people's
entire world view (because the Richard III question is bound up with
the national myth, glorious Tudor age heralding the modern world,and
the Reformation, Renaisssance etc., versus benighted Middle Ages &
the Inquisition, all that sort of stuff). And for all Ms Williamson's
research, for the reasons I've given, I felt - perhaps unfairly -
that she would be a useful preacher only to the converted.
It was in this context that I was really thinking, I suppose, when I
said Fields was the better book. Weir seems to be everywhere, and .
It is a very lame effort dressed up to look like genuine scholarship,
whereas Ms Williamson's book perhaps suffers from being the opposite.
I was recently looking to give my annoying brother (brought up on old
school history and children's encyclopaedias) a book on Richard III
that would stop him teasing me as an obvious loony. I chose Fields
rather than Williamson as a counter-blance to this perhaps because he
has a slightly less dictatorial tone (less offputting), gives a
fuller background to events and is - yes - more up-to-date, which is
something I reaslise Ms Williamson can do nothing about. Even if he's
just countering La Weir, this is not a useless exercise as she has
been in print for many years and seems to have been on the shelf of
every library and bookshop I have ever visited! Feedback I have
received suggests that she is generally swallowed whole by non-
students of the period. I was well aware of problems with Fields as I
read it (couldn't quote chapter & verse now). His knowledge of the
period is certainly not deep, but I do I find this automatically
invalidates his observations; unlike Tim I do not find his 'What If'
chapter offensive. All 'What Ifs' are a bit of fun. There are too
many imponderables in life. Change one small detail and who knows
what else might have happened. Perhaps I was in a less demanding mood
when I read his book than when I read Audrey Williamson (I had young
children and was very busy and short of sleep, 15th century studies
long neglected, and a goood light read on the subject much welcomed).
I repeat that I don't find any books on the Princes that satisfying,
and I think we all have our favourites and pet hates from amongst
those on offer, but that is surely nothing to get worked up about.
Marie

>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "tim"
<tmc_dale@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > I would be wary of reading too much into Fields book. It has
> > numerous
> > > problems with it and quite frankly his unnecessary "What ifs"
at
> > the end
> > > show all too obviously that the author has a lack of
understanding
> > of real
> > > politics in the period seeing as they are widely implausible.
> > >
> > >
> > > Problem as I see it, Tim, is that there isn't a isn't a single
> book
> > on the Princes in the Tower that doesn't 'have numerous problems
> with
> > it'. Possibly one of the problems is that sensationalist
publishers
> > want books that claim to "solve the mystery". However, I do feel
it
> > is better than the ones by Alison Weir, Elizabeth Jenkins or
Audrey
> > Williamson.
> >
> > Off the subject entirely, I seem to remember Marion was worrying
> > about an illustration of the Slaughter of the Innocents in Tony
> > Pollard's book. It is an illustration from a MS, and shows a
seated
> > woman with small male child (perhaps 12-18 months) standing on
her
> > lap. She has one hand open around the side of the child's waist,
and
> > the other round his left ankle (baby's left foot is standing on
her
> > knee). One of Herod's men has the baby's right foot, which is
lifted
> > behind it, in his left hand, and is stabbing baby in the thigh
with
> > sword held in his other hand. The baby's right hand is on the
> > mother's shoulder.
> > Now we come to what perhaps worried Marion. The woman is looking
at
> > the soldier apparently quite calmly and does not appear to be
> > struggling to protect her baby. In fact it could be interpreted
that
> > the hand on its stomach is pushing him towards the soldier. It
looks
> > perhaps as though the baby has grabbed his mother's shoulder to
> > resist being pulled away and she is not helping him.
> > However,this is not how I saw the painting at first, nor how I
> > believe it was meant to be interpreted, or would have been
> > interpreted by any contemporary. It would just be an aide memoir
for
> > people who already knew the story of the Slaughter of the
Innocents.
> > These illustrations did not aim at realism as we would understand
it
> -
> > they were symbolic, and did not make use of techniques which
would
> > give proper impression of perspective or impression of movement
and
> > muscle use. Everyone at the time 'knew', from mystery plays, etc,
> how
> > the mothers suffered and were unable to protect their babies.
What
> > the illustriation is surely trying to show is that the mother
had
> > been cuddling baby upright on her lap, her arm round his waist
and
> > his arm round her neck, but the soldier is pulling him away from
> her,
> > his arm is slipping from her shoulder. She looks at the soldier
> > pleadingly, she tries to hold on to her baby, grasping an ankle
with
> > one hand, the baby's waist with the other, but she is not strong
> > enough.....
> > Marie
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "marion davis" <phaecilia@y...>
> > > To: <>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:05 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Royal Blood
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hew wrote: if he had been naïve 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >

Hiya Marie

Starting with your last remarks first, which may be a bit unfair of
me:

<I repeat that I don't find any books on the Princes that satisfying,
> and I think we all have our favourites and pet hates from amongst
> those on offer, but that is surely nothing to get worked up about. >

I wasn't actually very 'worked up', nor did I think my post was full
of 'heat', I was, if anything, surprised to see Ms Williamson lumped
in with Weir and Fields, and curious as to why you'd put her there.
Your long and thoughtful post gives ample justificatication as to why
you included her, for which I thank you: curiousity haing been
satisfied.

I did say it was a while since I read 'An Investigation into a
Supposed Murder', and I'd probably have exactly the same qualms as
you nowadays (I find Kendall virtually unreadable nowadays, which
doesn't make me terribly popular at Ricardian love-ins, I can tell
you <g>). I'm definitely of the camp that thinks we shouldn't rely
overmuch on one source upon which to base our arguments. Thus Seward
and Weir aggravate me with their over-reliance of More, the novelist
Josephine Tey's over-reliance on Markham spoiled 'Daughter of Time'
for me, and if, as you suggest, Audrey Williamson relied too much on
Buck, then I expect that will get on my nerves if and when I re-read
her book!

< I assumed Alan Sutton (publishers) were to
blame, but I later read that Ms Williamson had refused to allow them
> to edit her work.[snipped, with apols]. I haven't kept my old
Ricardian Bulletins, but I do seem to recall correspondence in them
involving Audrey Williamson thatleft me with the impression she was
not an open-minded individual. >

wasn't she writing the book while suffering from a terminal illness -
or was that Elizabeth Jenkins?

<I also have a problem with her tendency to enlist any source that
suits her argument. >

Oh, well. She's certainly not alone in that regard. I recall the
incident a couple of years back when a listchum from elsewhere
pointed out to Michael Hicks (via Hicks' son) that Armstrong had
mistranslated Mancini's title page - and passages elsewhere in the
text - from the Latin. They were subsequently told Hicks would
address this anomoly in the reprint of his R3 biog. Hicks did so -
saying some people think it's a mistranslation, but arguing that
Armstrong clearly thinks Mancini intended the more hostile
interpretation that Armstrong chose! (parphrasing - I'm away from my
library).

Uh?

The Mancini report is not entirely critical of Richard, and indeed he
is critical of the actions of others, besides Richard. Worse, when I
protested to Michael about this decidely dodgy addition when the
reprint was published, *he agreed* privately that Armstrong had
indeed mistranslated the original. Well, why didn't he say so?
Because it wouldn't have suited the overall tenor of the book, that's
why...

Bah!

< And I was a little irritated at her rehashing the Countess of
Desmond story, backing it up with Horace Walpole's "corroboration"
even though her own words suggest she knows quite well there is a
problem with the dates.>

The Countess of Desmond story had a pretty good innings, didn't it? :)

<I was also uneasy with her frequent references to spies and agents.
She may have a case, but again it could leave an impression of a
credulous conspiracy-theorist.>

Well, nowadays it's pretty much established that both E4 and R3 used
spies and agents, of course, and Richard's court had a steady stream
of foreign 'diplomats' popping in and out from Von Poppeleau in the
North through to Salazar at Bosworth, from Mancini being Cato's Man
on the Spot in London, to the bloke from Tours visiting 6 months
after publicly suggesting R3's had offed his nephews and seized the
throne. Additionally, there's several references in Harley to
bearers being granted safe passage warrants, and diplomatic journeys
undertaken, which suggests that Audrey wasn't wide off the mark.

< But the main problem for me was that she relied over-heavily on the
> Tyrrell family tradition. Understandable. It was exciting to read
> about and must have been even more exciting to discover personally.
> However, without corroborative evidence, a story handed down
> verbally, and picked up hundreds of years after the events it
claims to describe, cannot be regarded as anything more than a
tantalising curiosity. It's not that I dismiss family traditions. >

Interesting. I mentioned in my earlier post that I read this at the
time as a sort of incidental sidebar, not a huge plank that she built
a dodgy theory on. (Probably precisely because it *was*
merely 'anecdotal' evidence). Nevertheless, having dug about
afterwards, and having been informed by another colleague much later
on about the original topography of the area in the 15thC, this got
me thinking about possible Princely travel routes.

In closing, for putting the priginal idea in my head (ie. that the
Princes could have left London relatively discreetly) in the first
place, I'm still very grateful to Ms Williamson.

Lorraine

Marie,

I meant to ask you about this a while ago:

You mentioned that the 'Old Dyck' (sp?) remark Wm Stanley made in
correspondence which some have thought referred to Richard and his
non-doubt miserable tendencies in fact referred to some problems he'd
been having with dykes or ditches or somesuch on his estates. This
interpretation of what he meant was, I think, new to me (tho' my
memory is getting every bit as atrocious as my typing <g>).

Could you please supply the source for this?

It all sounds rather interesting, and I'd like to read the article
for myself.

I don't usually run with modern parallels, but as someone who had a
part-interest in fixing the ancient drains at our house last summer,
what we hoped to be a 2-day job ended up taking 3 weeks to fix, so I
sympathise with Stanley on this one <g>. I can imagine his 15thC
dykes being as problematic as our 19thC drains.

My in-laws are farming folk and I remember years ago during a bad
winter several of the herd apparently wandered off into a 'lagoon'
area and vanished [it only takes one of the cows to go off and the
beaten track and they all get curious <g>], only for their carcasses
to turn up in the thaw, blocking a ditch that led away from the farm.
I kept away from the recovery expedition, but gather it was a nasty
business getting them out and clearing the ditch. I can't remember
now when in the year Stanley was writing, but you catch my drift...

Lorraine

Hi Lorraine, I don't actually think we're very far off regarding AW's
book. Having reread it I found it was actually better than I'd
remembered, but I can see what my original problems were with it.
Perhaps I'll pick up on points as I go down?


-- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hiya Marie
>
> Starting with your last remarks first, which may be a bit unfair of
> me:
>
> <I repeat that I don't find any books on the Princes that
satisfying,
> > and I think we all have our favourites and pet hates from amongst
> > those on offer, but that is surely nothing to get worked up
about. >
>
> I wasn't actually very 'worked up', nor did I think my post was
full
> of 'heat', I was, if anything, surprised to see Ms Williamson
lumped
> in with Weir and Fields, and curious as to why you'd put her
there.
> Your long and thoughtful post gives ample justificatication as to
why
> you included her, for which I thank you: curiousity haing been
> satisfied.

No, I didn't really mean to suggest you were 'worked up', it's just I
hadn't really expected any response to that bit of my message, and in
came long ones from you and Tim, you defending Audrey Williamson and
Tim delivering another fatal dose to Bertram Fields! So it seemed I
might have hit on a general sensitivity.
>
> I did say it was a while since I read 'An Investigation into a
> Supposed Murder', and I'd probably have exactly the same qualms as
> you nowadays (I find Kendall virtually unreadable nowadays, which
> doesn't make me terribly popular at Ricardian love-ins, I can tell
> you <g>). I'm definitely of the camp that thinks we shouldn't rely
> overmuch on one source upon which to base our arguments. Thus
Seward
> and Weir aggravate me with their over-reliance of More, the
novelist
> Josephine Tey's over-reliance on Markham spoiled 'Daughter of Time'
> for me, and if, as you suggest, Audrey Williamson relied too much
on
> Buck, then I expect that will get on my nerves if and when I re-
read
> her book!
>
> < I assumed Alan Sutton (publishers) were to
> blame, but I later read that Ms Williamson had refused to allow
them
> > to edit her work.[snipped, with apols]. I haven't kept my old
> Ricardian Bulletins, but I do seem to recall correspondence in them
> involving Audrey Williamson thatleft me with the impression she
was
> not an open-minded individual. >
>
> wasn't she writing the book while suffering from a terminal
illness -
> or was that Elizabeth Jenkins?

You're probably right, but I didn't know that at the time. I seem to
recall she did pass on not too long after the heat died down in the
Bulletin. I certainly did read a review of the book in the Ricardian,
though, which lamented the fact that she had not allowed the
publishers to edit the text. Of course this doesn't affect the
quality of her arguments, but does affect the credibility for anyone
new to the subject. So I feel really she let herself down.I guess if
she was terminally ill this would not have increased her store of
patience as regards getting her arguments accepted.
>
> <I also have a problem with her tendency to enlist any source that
> suits her argument. >
>
> Oh, well. She's certainly not alone in that regard. I recall the
> incident a couple of years back when a listchum from elsewhere
> pointed out to Michael Hicks (via Hicks' son) that Armstrong had
> mistranslated Mancini's title page - and passages elsewhere in the
> text - from the Latin. They were subsequently told Hicks would
> address this anomoly in the reprint of his R3 biog. Hicks did so -
> saying some people think it's a mistranslation, but arguing that
> Armstrong clearly thinks Mancini intended the more hostile
> interpretation that Armstrong chose! (parphrasing - I'm away from
my
> library).
>
> Uh?
>
> The Mancini report is not entirely critical of Richard, and indeed
he
> is critical of the actions of others, besides Richard. Worse, when
I
> protested to Michael about this decidely dodgy addition when the
> reprint was published, *he agreed* privately that Armstrong had
> indeed mistranslated the original. Well, why didn't he say so?
> Because it wouldn't have suited the overall tenor of the book,
that's
> why...
>
> Bah!
>
Yes, that's interesting. I'm sure I've read this, well it probably
meant 'usurpation' line; interesting to hear the background. Last
year at the York conference Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs (have
I spelt that right?) were lamenting that they have published so much
research showing the baselessness of various modern traditionalist
myths, but historians continue to ignore and just keep repeating
these things because they like the sound of them. Michael Hicks for
me is one of those invalualable but annoying people, like Alison
Hanham before, who carry out real research, bringing new things to
light, excellent brain, but tends in my view to misuse his ingenuity
in moulding these discoveries to fit a predetermined argument.
I disagree with Tim that Betram Fields shouldn't have wasted a book
refuting Alison Weir. I think perhaps things would progress much
faster if everyone took it upon themselves honestly to address points
made by previous workers in the field, even those they don't think
much of. However easy it is to refute Weir's arguments, an awful lot
of people were influenced by her.

> < And I was a little irritated at her rehashing the Countess of
> Desmond story, backing it up with Horace Walpole's "corroboration"
> even though her own words suggest she knows quite well there is a
> problem with the dates.>
>
> The Countess of Desmond story had a pretty good innings, didn't
it? :)

Absolutely! I noticed as soon as I looked up the family in the
Complete Peerage (this would have been, I think 1973 when the story
was still accepted currency) that the Countess K. really couldn't
have been around that early. It wasn't exactly original research in
dusty archives in the Vatican vaults or anything. And, as I say, what
made it worse is that Ms Williamson's own words made it clear that
she really knew this too but couldn't let go of a good tale. Again,
for those who do have a background in the period that unnecessarily
harms, rather than helps, her general credibility.
>
> <I was also uneasy with her frequent references to spies and
agents.
> She may have a case, but again it could leave an impression of a
> credulous conspiracy-theorist.>
>
> Well, nowadays it's pretty much established that both E4 and R3
used
> spies and agents, of course, and Richard's court had a steady
stream
> of foreign 'diplomats' popping in and out from Von Poppeleau in the
> North through to Salazar at Bosworth, from Mancini being Cato's Man
> on the Spot in London, to the bloke from Tours visiting 6 months
> after publicly suggesting R3's had offed his nephews and seized the
> throne. Additionally, there's several references in Harley to
> bearers being granted safe passage warrants, and diplomatic
journeys
> undertaken, which suggests that Audrey wasn't wide off the mark.

I agree, actually. Again, my problem is the effect I felt this might
have on the sceptical reader. I can be a bit of a conspiracy theorist
myself - and a c*** up theorist too. Bumbling human nature and the
demands of power lead to both. I do feel revisionists, as arguing
against the received wisdom, sadly but realistically need to be more
careful than traditionalists in how they express themselves.
>
> < But the main problem for me was that she relied over-heavily on
the
> > Tyrrell family tradition. Understandable. It was exciting to read
> > about and must have been even more exciting to discover
personally.
> > However, without corroborative evidence, a story handed down
> > verbally, and picked up hundreds of years after the events it
> claims to describe, cannot be regarded as anything more than a
> tantalising curiosity. It's not that I dismiss family traditions. >
>
> Interesting. I mentioned in my earlier post that I read this at
the
> time as a sort of incidental sidebar, not a huge plank that she
built
> a dodgy theory on. (Probably precisely because it *was*
> merely 'anecdotal' evidence). Nevertheless, having dug about
> afterwards, and having been informed by another colleague much
later
> on about the original topography of the area in the 15thC, this got
> me thinking about possible Princely travel routes.
>
> In closing, for putting the priginal idea in my head (ie. that the
> Princes could have left London relatively discreetly) in the first
> place, I'm still very grateful to Ms Williamson.

Yes, so am I. It was a very exciting read at the time, and if we ever
find 'dem bones' don't belong to Edward's sons perhaps her argument
will attract more attention than it has done up till now. Certainly,
as has been realised since, there is something very odd about
the 'Lambert Simnel' business. Another case of made-up names with
the 'recognition factor'. Why on earth?? (I'm a bit out of it. Apart
from the simnel = simnel cake, and Lambert = Mistress Shore's maiden
name & was not an English Christian name, which I know someone has
come up with - has anybody suggested that Richard Simon was also a
made-up name, and may reference Richard III and Simon Magus? or
pointed out that Simnel is only a diminutive form of Simon? Genuine
question)

I suppose my main problem, as I said, was not Audrey Williamson'a
knowledge, or the intelligence of her ideas, but presentation and the
fact that it doesn't really deal very much with alternative
explanations, which as I say made it a book I didn't feel I could
recommend as a general reader on the subject to the likes of my
brother!
Marie

>
> Lorraine

A fatal dose i am glad <g> - seriously though I don't know that i have ever
bothered with the Williamson's work - as Lorraine knows well my view of the
fate of the prince's varies with my mood - though essentially remains the
same - dead by 1485 either through a botched resuce attempt or murder.
Though perhaps I haven't been clear Marie whilst the "what ifs" annoy me my
main complaints about Fields is the general level of assumption and the very
poor evaluation of evidence.

I freely admit to a very keen sensitivity over the Queen and her family (I
think they have received a far worse "rap" than Richard based on far less
evidence) but Field does in my view have a tendency to apply a very modern
interpretation on the period and therefore even for a Ricardian keen to
learn more is not a book I would recomend.

One rare area of complete agreement with that North Eastern Reprobate
Lorraine though is Kendall - which lets face it is out of date well written
tosh! <g>

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Royal Blood


> Hi Lorraine, I don't actually think we're very far off regarding AW's
> book. Having reread it I found it was actually better than I'd
> remembered, but I can see what my original problems were with it.
> Perhaps I'll pick up on points as I go down?
>
>
> -- In , "lpickering2"
> <lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> > Hiya Marie
> >
> > Starting with your last remarks first, which may be a bit unfair of
> > me:
> >
> > <I repeat that I don't find any books on the Princes that
> satisfying,
> > > and I think we all have our favourites and pet hates from amongst
> > > those on offer, but that is surely nothing to get worked up
> about. >
> >
> > I wasn't actually very 'worked up', nor did I think my post was
> full
> > of 'heat', I was, if anything, surprised to see Ms Williamson
> lumped
> > in with Weir and Fields, and curious as to why you'd put her
> there.
> > Your long and thoughtful post gives ample justificatication as to
> why
> > you included her, for which I thank you: curiousity haing been
> > satisfied.
>
> No, I didn't really mean to suggest you were 'worked up', it's just I
> hadn't really expected any response to that bit of my message, and in
> came long ones from you and Tim, you defending Audrey Williamson and
> Tim delivering another fatal dose to Bertram Fields! So it seemed I
> might have hit on a general sensitivity.
> >
> > I did say it was a while since I read 'An Investigation into a
> > Supposed Murder', and I'd probably have exactly the same qualms as
> > you nowadays (I find Kendall virtually unreadable nowadays, which
> > doesn't make me terribly popular at Ricardian love-ins, I can tell
> > you <g>). I'm definitely of the camp that thinks we shouldn't rely
> > overmuch on one source upon which to base our arguments. Thus
> Seward
> > and Weir aggravate me with their over-reliance of More, the
> novelist
> > Josephine Tey's over-reliance on Markham spoiled 'Daughter of Time'
> > for me, and if, as you suggest, Audrey Williamson relied too much
> on
> > Buck, then I expect that will get on my nerves if and when I re-
> read
> > her book!
> >
> > < I assumed Alan Sutton (publishers) were to
> > blame, but I later read that Ms Williamson had refused to allow
> them
> > > to edit her work.[snipped, with apols]. I haven't kept my old
> > Ricardian Bulletins, but I do seem to recall correspondence in them
> > involving Audrey Williamson thatleft me with the impression she
> was
> > not an open-minded individual. >
> >
> > wasn't she writing the book while suffering from a terminal
> illness -
> > or was that Elizabeth Jenkins?
>
> You're probably right, but I didn't know that at the time. I seem to
> recall she did pass on not too long after the heat died down in the
> Bulletin. I certainly did read a review of the book in the Ricardian,
> though, which lamented the fact that she had not allowed the
> publishers to edit the text. Of course this doesn't affect the
> quality of her arguments, but does affect the credibility for anyone
> new to the subject. So I feel really she let herself down.I guess if
> she was terminally ill this would not have increased her store of
> patience as regards getting her arguments accepted.
> >
> > <I also have a problem with her tendency to enlist any source that
> > suits her argument. >
> >
> > Oh, well. She's certainly not alone in that regard. I recall the
> > incident a couple of years back when a listchum from elsewhere
> > pointed out to Michael Hicks (via Hicks' son) that Armstrong had
> > mistranslated Mancini's title page - and passages elsewhere in the
> > text - from the Latin. They were subsequently told Hicks would
> > address this anomoly in the reprint of his R3 biog. Hicks did so -
> > saying some people think it's a mistranslation, but arguing that
> > Armstrong clearly thinks Mancini intended the more hostile
> > interpretation that Armstrong chose! (parphrasing - I'm away from
> my
> > library).
> >
> > Uh?
> >
> > The Mancini report is not entirely critical of Richard, and indeed
> he
> > is critical of the actions of others, besides Richard. Worse, when
> I
> > protested to Michael about this decidely dodgy addition when the
> > reprint was published, *he agreed* privately that Armstrong had
> > indeed mistranslated the original. Well, why didn't he say so?
> > Because it wouldn't have suited the overall tenor of the book,
> that's
> > why...
> >
> > Bah!
> >
> Yes, that's interesting. I'm sure I've read this, well it probably
> meant 'usurpation' line; interesting to hear the background. Last
> year at the York conference Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs (have
> I spelt that right?) were lamenting that they have published so much
> research showing the baselessness of various modern traditionalist
> myths, but historians continue to ignore and just keep repeating
> these things because they like the sound of them. Michael Hicks for
> me is one of those invalualable but annoying people, like Alison
> Hanham before, who carry out real research, bringing new things to
> light, excellent brain, but tends in my view to misuse his ingenuity
> in moulding these discoveries to fit a predetermined argument.
> I disagree with Tim that Betram Fields shouldn't have wasted a book
> refuting Alison Weir. I think perhaps things would progress much
> faster if everyone took it upon themselves honestly to address points
> made by previous workers in the field, even those they don't think
> much of. However easy it is to refute Weir's arguments, an awful lot
> of people were influenced by her.
>
> > < And I was a little irritated at her rehashing the Countess of
> > Desmond story, backing it up with Horace Walpole's "corroboration"
> > even though her own words suggest she knows quite well there is a
> > problem with the dates.>
> >
> > The Countess of Desmond story had a pretty good innings, didn't
> it? :)
>
> Absolutely! I noticed as soon as I looked up the family in the
> Complete Peerage (this would have been, I think 1973 when the story
> was still accepted currency) that the Countess K. really couldn't
> have been around that early. It wasn't exactly original research in
> dusty archives in the Vatican vaults or anything. And, as I say, what
> made it worse is that Ms Williamson's own words made it clear that
> she really knew this too but couldn't let go of a good tale. Again,
> for those who do have a background in the period that unnecessarily
> harms, rather than helps, her general credibility.
> >
> > <I was also uneasy with her frequent references to spies and
> agents.
> > She may have a case, but again it could leave an impression of a
> > credulous conspiracy-theorist.>
> >
> > Well, nowadays it's pretty much established that both E4 and R3
> used
> > spies and agents, of course, and Richard's court had a steady
> stream
> > of foreign 'diplomats' popping in and out from Von Poppeleau in the
> > North through to Salazar at Bosworth, from Mancini being Cato's Man
> > on the Spot in London, to the bloke from Tours visiting 6 months
> > after publicly suggesting R3's had offed his nephews and seized the
> > throne. Additionally, there's several references in Harley to
> > bearers being granted safe passage warrants, and diplomatic
> journeys
> > undertaken, which suggests that Audrey wasn't wide off the mark.
>
> I agree, actually. Again, my problem is the effect I felt this might
> have on the sceptical reader. I can be a bit of a conspiracy theorist
> myself - and a c*** up theorist too. Bumbling human nature and the
> demands of power lead to both. I do feel revisionists, as arguing
> against the received wisdom, sadly but realistically need to be more
> careful than traditionalists in how they express themselves.
> >
> > < But the main problem for me was that she relied over-heavily on
> the
> > > Tyrrell family tradition. Understandable. It was exciting to read
> > > about and must have been even more exciting to discover
> personally.
> > > However, without corroborative evidence, a story handed down
> > > verbally, and picked up hundreds of years after the events it
> > claims to describe, cannot be regarded as anything more than a
> > tantalising curiosity. It's not that I dismiss family traditions. >
> >
> > Interesting. I mentioned in my earlier post that I read this at
> the
> > time as a sort of incidental sidebar, not a huge plank that she
> built
> > a dodgy theory on. (Probably precisely because it *was*
> > merely 'anecdotal' evidence). Nevertheless, having dug about
> > afterwards, and having been informed by another colleague much
> later
> > on about the original topography of the area in the 15thC, this got
> > me thinking about possible Princely travel routes.
> >
> > In closing, for putting the priginal idea in my head (ie. that the
> > Princes could have left London relatively discreetly) in the first
> > place, I'm still very grateful to Ms Williamson.
>
> Yes, so am I. It was a very exciting read at the time, and if we ever
> find 'dem bones' don't belong to Edward's sons perhaps her argument
> will attract more attention than it has done up till now. Certainly,
> as has been realised since, there is something very odd about
> the 'Lambert Simnel' business. Another case of made-up names with
> the 'recognition factor'. Why on earth?? (I'm a bit out of it. Apart
> from the simnel = simnel cake, and Lambert = Mistress Shore's maiden
> name & was not an English Christian name, which I know someone has
> come up with - has anybody suggested that Richard Simon was also a
> made-up name, and may reference Richard III and Simon Magus? or
> pointed out that Simnel is only a diminutive form of Simon? Genuine
> question)
>
> I suppose my main problem, as I said, was not Audrey Williamson'a
> knowledge, or the intelligence of her ideas, but presentation and the
> fact that it doesn't really deal very much with alternative
> explanations, which as I say made it a book I didn't feel I could
> recommend as a general reader on the subject to the likes of my
> brother!
> Marie
>
> >
> > Lorraine
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Marie,
>
> I meant to ask you about this a while ago:
>
> You mentioned that the 'Old Dyck' (sp?) remark Wm Stanley made in
> correspondence which some have thought referred to Richard and his
> non-doubt miserable tendencies in fact referred to some problems
he'd
> been having with dykes or ditches or somesuch on his estates. This
> interpretation of what he meant was, I think, new to me (tho' my
> memory is getting every bit as atrocious as my typing <g>).
>
> Could you please supply the source for this?

Sorry! I don't like being in this position, but my memory has also
deteriorated. I know it was a long while ago. I had thought it was a
short note in an old Ricardian, but can't find it as yet. If I
haven't tracked it down before I go to York for the Research Weekend
(late April), I shall ask around there.

Marie

PS. Your sad story of the cows reminds me of an incident from her
childhood in Donegal my mum related in her memoirs. One Sunday one of
their cows strayed off the road and into a bog. As they were
struggling to pull her out, along came the local folk on their way
back from church. So the men all waded in to help in their best
suits.... The cow was okay, though.
>

> It all sounds rather interesting, and I'd like to read the article
> for myself.
>
> I don't usually run with modern parallels, but as someone who had a
> part-interest in fixing the ancient drains at our house last
summer,
> what we hoped to be a 2-day job ended up taking 3 weeks to fix, so
I
> sympathise with Stanley on this one <g>. I can imagine his 15thC
> dykes being as problematic as our 19thC drains.
>
> My in-laws are farming folk and I remember years ago during a bad
> winter several of the herd apparently wandered off into a 'lagoon'
> area and vanished [it only takes one of the cows to go off and the
> beaten track and they all get curious <g>], only for their
carcasses
> to turn up in the thaw, blocking a ditch that led away from the
farm.
> I kept away from the recovery expedition, but gather it was a nasty
> business getting them out and clearing the ditch. I can't remember
> now when in the year Stanley was writing, but you catch my drift...
>
> Lorraine

Hi Marie

< Could you please supply the source for this?

Sorry! I don't like being in this position, but my memory has also
deteriorated. I know it was a long while ago. I had thought it was a
short note in an old Ricardian, but can't find it as yet. If I
haven't tracked it down before I go to York for the Research Weekend
> (late April), I shall ask around there.>

Many thanks. I sympathise. It's impossible to remember every thing
there is in print on Imaginary People who have caught our collective
imaginations <vbg>.

And I've just remembered that in the Library here (at the Tony
Pollard University <g> in Middlesbrough) is a book on the Stanley
Estates. It may be in there. I thought it may be the sort of thing
hidden in the Ric Journals, but a (very) quick look through my
owndidn't yield it up, but I was in a hurry...

If I come across it, I'll post and put us both out of our misery! :)

Lorraine

--- In , "lpickering2"
<lpickering2@y...> wrote:
> Hi Marie
>
> < Could you please supply the source for this?
>
> Sorry! I don't like being in this position, but my memory has also
> deteriorated. I know it was a long while ago. I had thought it was
a
> short note in an old Ricardian, but can't find it as yet. If I
> haven't tracked it down before I go to York for the Research
Weekend
> > (late April), I shall ask around there.>

Hi again.

Marion has brilliantly found the Research Note in question for me. It
is in Ricardian 105 (June 1989) and it was by none other than Michael
Jones, whose book on Bosworth is currently causing such controversey.

Apparently, the reference comes in a letter from Sir William Stanley
(not Thomas) to his friend Piers Warburton (I imagine Piers was one
of the Warburtons of Arley Hall, just round the corner from us and a
favourite haunt of mine on summer Sundays - the MS. is from "John
Rylands Library, Arley Ch. 30/1")
the full text is :
"Cosyn Pers, I commaunde me unto you. I dowete not ye remembre how I
promised to come unto your Parke, and therein to have killed a buk
with my hounds, and hit is so as now I am so besy with Old Dyk, I can
have no layf therunto; notwithstandyng, if hit please you to have my
servauntes and my hounds they shal be redy at your commaundement, and
Crist kepe you
Rydelely 6 September"
Jones sexplains that "It was the antiquarian William Beaumont who
first suggested the 'Old Dyk' was none other than Richard III, and
this interpretation has been happily followed by the Dictionary of
National Biography and many other works."
Apparently, Ridley formed part of a lordship granted to Sir William
on 10 December 1484; the surviving remnant of the house he built
there is early Tudor in style. Jones suggests he may have been
referring to drainage works connected with this house.

Whatever, or whoever, Sir William meant by 'Old dyk', however, the
bottom line would appear to be that the letter must have been written
in the reign of Henry VII : since it is dated 6 September, Sir
William did not become possessed of Ridley until December 1484, and
Richard III died the following August.
Marie




>
> Many thanks. I sympathise. It's impossible to remember every
thing
> there is in print on Imaginary People who have caught our
collective
> imaginations <vbg>.
>
> And I've just remembered that in the Library here (at the Tony
> Pollard University <g> in Middlesbrough) is a book on the Stanley
> Estates. It may be in there. I thought it may be the sort of
thing
> hidden in the Ric Journals, but a (very) quick look through my
> owndidn't yield it up, but I was in a hurry...
>
> If I come across it, I'll post and put us both out of our misery! :)
>
> Lorraine

Many thanks Marie - I have a copy of Ricardian 105 somewhere at home
(and here at Teesside Poly). Interesting that bit about the dating
of the letter, BTW: I always did think it was rather an odd thing
for Stanley to have called R3, but assumed it to be more redolent of
Wm's own personality, rather than relating to R3's demeanour - and
rather like the way Edward Wydeville's correspondent felt free to
joke about Wydeville losing his looks after losing his teeth in some
battle or other, it was the 'human' touch that one occasionally
glimpses behind these names on the page...

Thanks again - appreciate it. And thanks also to Marion for finding
the ref.

Regards - Lorraine