Size matters!

Hi, All -

Speaking of Richard's having his small size working against him in the king
department, I just found this on the Wikipedia page about Martin Luther, in
the section called "Depiction of Luther."



"In the 1530's and 1540's, printed images of Luther that emphasized his
monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast to
images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with a
"double chin, strong mouth, piercing, deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and squat
neck." He was shown to be physically imposing, an equal in stature to the
secular German princes with whom he would join forces to spread Lutheranism.
His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly
pleasures like drinking or conjugal pleasures with his wife - behavior that
was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders.
Famous images from this period include the woodcuts by Hans Brosamer (1530)
and Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger (1546)."



The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say that
Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward IV
and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.

Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

I have always liked the idea of Richard as an underdog - the small brother of two magnificent specimans of manhood! Then this kid works and trains to become a great knight and lord of the North. Straight out of a fairy tale! As I've said before, he has always reminded me of "Wart" in White's classic "The Once and Future King."

Of course I could be wrong about this! But until proven wrong, I'm gonna stick to this romantic idea. Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All -
>
> Speaking of Richard's having his small size working against him in the king
> department, I just found this on the Wikipedia page about Martin Luther, in
> the section called "Depiction of Luther."
>
>
>
> "In the 1530's and 1540's, printed images of Luther that emphasized his
> monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast to
> images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with a
> "double chin, strong mouth, piercing, deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and squat
> neck." He was shown to be physically imposing, an equal in stature to the
> secular German princes with whom he would join forces to spread Lutheranism.
> His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly
> pleasures like drinking or conjugal pleasures with his wife - behavior that
> was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders.
> Famous images from this period include the woodcuts by Hans Brosamer (1530)
> and Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger (1546)."
>
>
>
> The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say that
> Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward IV
> and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Maire!



I agree with you, although there was a bit of an uproar around here a couple
months ago when I wrote that I thought that Richard was an underdog. Perhaps
others interpret the word somewhat differently than I do - to me it means a
person who is facing seemingly overwhelming odds, with whom one tends to
sympathize at least in part because the deck does seem stacked against him.
I think Richard enjoyed important periods of relative tranquility,
especially in his formative years, that helped to make him more idealistic
than even we, his supporters, may give him credit for. There is the fact
that he trained and worked to overcome the odds against him. The fact that
he became an excellent and faithful administrator of his brother's policies,
despite his youth and less than imposing physique. The fact that he not
only didn't plot and plan to become king, but that he seems to have had to
react, albeit generally prudently and quickly, to the unexpected tide of
events when Edward died. The fact that he did attempt to rule and judge
justly and mercifully both during his overlordship in the North and during
his brief reign. The fact that what he was doing was largely resented by the
powerful magnates who opposed him and wasn't properly appreciated by many of
those with more modest resources, who in any case probably would not have
had enough power to change the course of events. And the fact that he was
not only not too ruthless, but if anything, was not ruthless enough, which
thereby laid the foundation for the eventual success of those of traitorous
inclination who were indeed ruthless enough. The fact that he was an
honourable man, and there were some lines that he just wouldn't cross.
Actually, as I start listing his various traits, it becomes inconceivable
to me that he ever would have "disposed" of his nephews - although it is
possible that another of his associates did so, without his knowledge and
against his wishes.



As I wrote some time ago, I think Richard's life became a series of
increasingly unpleasant choices ("damned if he did; damned if he didn't").
That he continued to do his duty, regardless of his own personal wishes. And
as a result was vilified by his successors, the usurpers, and his reputation
remains tainted to this day. I agree with the aims of the Society that some
things are worth fighting for, even after 500 years, and clearing Richard's
reputation is one of those things. But that's just my two farthings. <smile>



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne





From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 10:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Size matters!





I have always liked the idea of Richard as an underdog - the small brother
of two magnificent specimans of manhood! Then this kid works and trains to
become a great knight and lord of the North. Straight out of a fairy tale!
As I've said before, he has always reminded me of "Wart" in White's classic
"The Once and Future King."

Of course I could be wrong about this! But until proven wrong, I'm gonna
stick to this romantic idea. Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All -
>
> Speaking of Richard's having his small size working against him in the
king
> department, I just found this on the Wikipedia page about Martin Luther,
in
> the section called "Depiction of Luther."
>
>
>
> "In the 1530's and 1540's, printed images of Luther that emphasized his
> monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast
to
> images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with
a
> "double chin, strong mouth, piercing, deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and
squat
> neck." He was shown to be physically imposing, an equal in stature to the
> secular German princes with whom he would join forces to spread
Lutheranism.
> His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly
> pleasures like drinking or conjugal pleasures with his wife - behavior
that
> was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders.
> Famous images from this period include the woodcuts by Hans Brosamer
(1530)
> and Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger (1546)."
>
>
>
> The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
that
> Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
IV
> and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne, you are right.
" Underdog" does not mean passive victim. Just that he fought against enormous odds. I think some took the phrase to mean he was weak....... Which I know you did not mean.

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

On Dec 2, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Hi, Maire!
>
> I agree with you, although there was a bit of an uproar around here a couple
> months ago when I wrote that I thought that Richard was an underdog. Perhaps
> others interpret the word somewhat differently than I do - to me it means a
> person who is facing seemingly overwhelming odds, with whom one tends to
> sympathize at least in part because the deck does seem stacked against him.
> I think Richard enjoyed important periods of relative tranquility,
> especially in his formative years, that helped to make him more idealistic
> than even we, his supporters, may give him credit for. There is the fact
> that he trained and worked to overcome the odds against him. The fact that
> he became an excellent and faithful administrator of his brother's policies,
> despite his youth and less than imposing physique. The fact that he not
> only didn't plot and plan to become king, but that he seems to have had to
> react, albeit generally prudently and quickly, to the unexpected tide of
> events when Edward died. The fact that he did attempt to rule and judge
> justly and mercifully both during his overlordship in the North and during
> his brief reign. The fact that what he was doing was largely resented by the
> powerful magnates who opposed him and wasn't properly appreciated by many of
> those with more modest resources, who in any case probably would not have
> had enough power to change the course of events. And the fact that he was
> not only not too ruthless, but if anything, was not ruthless enough, which
> thereby laid the foundation for the eventual success of those of traitorous
> inclination who were indeed ruthless enough. The fact that he was an
> honourable man, and there were some lines that he just wouldn't cross.
> Actually, as I start listing his various traits, it becomes inconceivable
> to me that he ever would have "disposed" of his nephews - although it is
> possible that another of his associates did so, without his knowledge and
> against his wishes.
>
> As I wrote some time ago, I think Richard's life became a series of
> increasingly unpleasant choices ("damned if he did; damned if he didn't").
> That he continued to do his duty, regardless of his own personal wishes. And
> as a result was vilified by his successors, the usurpers, and his reputation
> remains tainted to this day. I agree with the aims of the Society that some
> things are worth fighting for, even after 500 years, and clearing Richard's
> reputation is one of those things. But that's just my two farthings. <smile>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 10:12 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Size matters!
>
> I have always liked the idea of Richard as an underdog - the small brother
> of two magnificent specimans of manhood! Then this kid works and trains to
> become a great knight and lord of the North. Straight out of a fairy tale!
> As I've said before, he has always reminded me of "Wart" in White's classic
> "The Once and Future King."
>
> Of course I could be wrong about this! But until proven wrong, I'm gonna
> stick to this romantic idea. Maire.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, All -
> >
> > Speaking of Richard's having his small size working against him in the
> king
> > department, I just found this on the Wikipedia page about Martin Luther,
> in
> > the section called "Depiction of Luther."
> >
> >
> >
> > "In the 1530's and 1540's, printed images of Luther that emphasized his
> > monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast
> to
> > images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with
> a
> > "double chin, strong mouth, piercing, deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and
> squat
> > neck." He was shown to be physically imposing, an equal in stature to the
> > secular German princes with whom he would join forces to spread
> Lutheranism.
> > His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly
> > pleasures like drinking or conjugal pleasures with his wife - behavior
> that
> > was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders.
> > Famous images from this period include the woodcuts by Hans Brosamer
> (1530)
> > and Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger (1546)."
> >
> >
> >
> > The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> > portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> > saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
> that
> > Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> > But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> > attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
> IV
> > and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

So well said, Johanne. I didn't realize I may have stumbled into some tall grass by calling Richard an "underdog"! Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Maire!
>
>
>
> I agree with you, although there was a bit of an uproar around here a couple
> months ago when I wrote that I thought that Richard was an underdog. Perhaps
> others interpret the word somewhat differently than I do - to me it means a
> person who is facing seemingly overwhelming odds, with whom one tends to
> sympathize at least in part because the deck does seem stacked against him.
> I think Richard enjoyed important periods of relative tranquility,
> especially in his formative years, that helped to make him more idealistic
> than even we, his supporters, may give him credit for. There is the fact
> that he trained and worked to overcome the odds against him. The fact that
> he became an excellent and faithful administrator of his brother's policies,
> despite his youth and less than imposing physique. The fact that he not
> only didn't plot and plan to become king, but that he seems to have had to
> react, albeit generally prudently and quickly, to the unexpected tide of
> events when Edward died. The fact that he did attempt to rule and judge
> justly and mercifully both during his overlordship in the North and during
> his brief reign. The fact that what he was doing was largely resented by the
> powerful magnates who opposed him and wasn't properly appreciated by many of
> those with more modest resources, who in any case probably would not have
> had enough power to change the course of events. And the fact that he was
> not only not too ruthless, but if anything, was not ruthless enough, which
> thereby laid the foundation for the eventual success of those of traitorous
> inclination who were indeed ruthless enough. The fact that he was an
> honourable man, and there were some lines that he just wouldn't cross.
> Actually, as I start listing his various traits, it becomes inconceivable
> to me that he ever would have "disposed" of his nephews - although it is
> possible that another of his associates did so, without his knowledge and
> against his wishes.
>
>
>
> As I wrote some time ago, I think Richard's life became a series of
> increasingly unpleasant choices ("damned if he did; damned if he didn't").
> That he continued to do his duty, regardless of his own personal wishes. And
> as a result was vilified by his successors, the usurpers, and his reputation
> remains tainted to this day. I agree with the aims of the Society that some
> things are worth fighting for, even after 500 years, and clearing Richard's
> reputation is one of those things. But that's just my two farthings. <smile>
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 10:12 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Size matters!
>
>
>
>
>
> I have always liked the idea of Richard as an underdog - the small brother
> of two magnificent specimans of manhood! Then this kid works and trains to
> become a great knight and lord of the North. Straight out of a fairy tale!
> As I've said before, he has always reminded me of "Wart" in White's classic
> "The Once and Future King."
>
> Of course I could be wrong about this! But until proven wrong, I'm gonna
> stick to this romantic idea. Maire.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, All -
> >
> > Speaking of Richard's having his small size working against him in the
> king
> > department, I just found this on the Wikipedia page about Martin Luther,
> in
> > the section called "Depiction of Luther."
> >
> >
> >
> > "In the 1530's and 1540's, printed images of Luther that emphasized his
> > monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast
> to
> > images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with
> a
> > "double chin, strong mouth, piercing, deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and
> squat
> > neck." He was shown to be physically imposing, an equal in stature to the
> > secular German princes with whom he would join forces to spread
> Lutheranism.
> > His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly
> > pleasures like drinking or conjugal pleasures with his wife - behavior
> that
> > was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders.
> > Famous images from this period include the woodcuts by Hans Brosamer
> (1530)
> > and Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger (1546)."
> >
> >
> >
> > The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> > portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> > saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
> that
> > Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> > But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> > attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
> IV
> > and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

OFF TOPIC..but can someone tell me know I can stop all the messages going to my email...I have followed the Yahoo instruction as to receiving no emails and reading the messages on the web...this has not worked...I am pretty desperate as there are so many messages it is a pain...Any suggestions? .Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> So well said, Johanne. I didn't realize I may have stumbled into some tall grass by calling Richard an "underdog"! Maire.
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Maire!
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with you, although there was a bit of an uproar around here a couple
> > months ago when I wrote that I thought that Richard was an underdog. Perhaps
> > others interpret the word somewhat differently than I do - to me it means a
> > person who is facing seemingly overwhelming odds, with whom one tends to
> > sympathize at least in part because the deck does seem stacked against him.
> > I think Richard enjoyed important periods of relative tranquility,
> > especially in his formative years, that helped to make him more idealistic
> > than even we, his supporters, may give him credit for. There is the fact
> > that he trained and worked to overcome the odds against him. The fact that
> > he became an excellent and faithful administrator of his brother's policies,
> > despite his youth and less than imposing physique. The fact that he not
> > only didn't plot and plan to become king, but that he seems to have had to
> > react, albeit generally prudently and quickly, to the unexpected tide of
> > events when Edward died. The fact that he did attempt to rule and judge
> > justly and mercifully both during his overlordship in the North and during
> > his brief reign. The fact that what he was doing was largely resented by the
> > powerful magnates who opposed him and wasn't properly appreciated by many of
> > those with more modest resources, who in any case probably would not have
> > had enough power to change the course of events. And the fact that he was
> > not only not too ruthless, but if anything, was not ruthless enough, which
> > thereby laid the foundation for the eventual success of those of traitorous
> > inclination who were indeed ruthless enough. The fact that he was an
> > honourable man, and there were some lines that he just wouldn't cross.
> > Actually, as I start listing his various traits, it becomes inconceivable
> > to me that he ever would have "disposed" of his nephews - although it is
> > possible that another of his associates did so, without his knowledge and
> > against his wishes.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I wrote some time ago, I think Richard's life became a series of
> > increasingly unpleasant choices ("damned if he did; damned if he didn't").
> > That he continued to do his duty, regardless of his own personal wishes. And
> > as a result was vilified by his successors, the usurpers, and his reputation
> > remains tainted to this day. I agree with the aims of the Society that some
> > things are worth fighting for, even after 500 years, and clearing Richard's
> > reputation is one of those things. But that's just my two farthings. <smile>
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 10:12 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Size matters!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have always liked the idea of Richard as an underdog - the small brother
> > of two magnificent specimans of manhood! Then this kid works and trains to
> > become a great knight and lord of the North. Straight out of a fairy tale!
> > As I've said before, he has always reminded me of "Wart" in White's classic
> > "The Once and Future King."
> >
> > Of course I could be wrong about this! But until proven wrong, I'm gonna
> > stick to this romantic idea. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> > <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, All -
> > >
> > > Speaking of Richard's having his small size working against him in the
> > king
> > > department, I just found this on the Wikipedia page about Martin Luther,
> > in
> > > the section called "Depiction of Luther."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "In the 1530's and 1540's, printed images of Luther that emphasized his
> > > monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast
> > to
> > > images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with
> > a
> > > "double chin, strong mouth, piercing, deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and
> > squat
> > > neck." He was shown to be physically imposing, an equal in stature to the
> > > secular German princes with whom he would join forces to spread
> > Lutheranism.
> > > His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly
> > > pleasures like drinking or conjugal pleasures with his wife - behavior
> > that
> > > was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders.
> > > Famous images from this period include the woodcuts by Hans Brosamer
> > (1530)
> > > and Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger (1546)."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> > > portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> > > saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
> > that
> > > Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> > > But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> > > attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
> > IV
> > > and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm wondering if it might also have been a matter of Edward IV/Hal being Extroverts, while Richard may have been more of an Introvert -- or at the very least more reserved and watchful. Even in today's world, Extroverts are "preferred" by society to Introverts, who aren't really understood.

~Weds

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

<snipped>

> The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say that
> Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward IV and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if it might also have been a matter of Edward IV/Hal being Extroverts, while Richard may have been more of an Introvert -- or at the very least more reserved and watchful. Even in today's world, Extroverts are "preferred" by society to Introverts, who aren't really understood.
>
> ~Weds



I'm in the introvert 10% or so of the human race. I think introverts sometimes are misinterpreted by the outgoing majority as being unfriendly, antisocial, stuck-up, and even depressed. If Richard was an introvert, plus his being from the North, that could be a real problem for him.

Katy

Your comments reminded me of a TED talk I watched recently with Ernesto Sirolli, entitled, "If you want to help someone, shut up."

He mentions that when most well-intentioned aid workers hear of a problem they go in with the attitude of, "Let me tell you what to do." Mr. Sirolli suggests this is naïve and off-putting. He proposes that the first and most important step is to get out and listen to the people you're trying to help. You ask them what they want to do rather than taking over and telling them what they're going to do.

It occurred to me that this may have been part of what Richard did to succeed in the North. It's something most nobles would never think of doing, because it puts the power to get things done in the hands of those you're lording it over. They decide what needs doing in their community, while you support their doing it and step in where they actually need help.

The talk -- which I found funny and enlightening -- is here:
http://youtu.be/chXsLtHqfdM

I also remember reading somewhere (probably Kendall) of an instance when the Mayor/aldermen of York wrote to tell Richard they'd imprisoned someone for three months for some transgression.

"What should we do with him?" was the question. Richard's reply was, "Release him."

I sometimes get the impression Richard may have been so approachable, the Northerners bugged him at times just for the opportunity to interact with him.

~Wednesday

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
<snipped>
.
.
.
> The fact that
> he became an excellent and faithful administrator of his brother's policies,
> despite his youth and less than imposing physique. The fact that he not
> only didn't plot and plan to become king, but that he seems to have had to
> react, albeit generally prudently and quickly, to the unexpected tide of
> events when Edward died. The fact that he did attempt to rule and judge
> justly and mercifully both during his overlordship in the North and during
> his brief reign. The fact that what he was doing was largely resented by the > powerful magnates who opposed him and wasn't properly appreciated by many of > those with more modest resources, who in any case probably would not have > had enough power to change the course of events. And the fact that he was > not only not too ruthless, but if anything, was not ruthless enough, which > thereby laid the foundation for the eventual success of those of traitorous > inclination who were indeed ruthless enough. The fact that he was an
> honourable man, and there were some lines that he just wouldn't cross.
> Actually, as I start listing his various traits, it becomes inconceivable
> to me that he ever would have "disposed" of his nephews - although it is
> possible that another of his associates did so, without his knowledge and
> against his wishes.
.
.
.
<snipped>

As an introverted youngest of four sons from the North I entirely concur.


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2 December 2012, 16:44
Subject: Re: Size matters!


 


--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if it might also have been a matter of Edward IV/Hal being Extroverts, while Richard may have been more of an Introvert -- or at the very least more reserved and watchful. Even in today's world, Extroverts are "preferred" by society to Introverts, who aren't really understood.
>
> ~Weds

I'm in the introvert 10% or so of the human race. I think introverts sometimes are misinterpreted by the outgoing majority as being unfriendly, antisocial, stuck-up, and even depressed. If Richard was an introvert, plus his being from the North, that could be a real problem for him.

Katy

Johanne, I would call that a textbook definition of "underdog".  Great post too.
 
Liz
 


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2 December 2012, 15:37
Subject: RE: Re: Size matters!

 
Hi, Maire!

I agree with you, although there was a bit of an uproar around here a couple
months ago when I wrote that I thought that Richard was an underdog. Perhaps
others interpret the word somewhat differently than I do - to me it means a
person who is facing seemingly overwhelming odds, with whom one tends to
sympathize at least in part because the deck does seem stacked against him.
I think Richard enjoyed important periods of relative tranquility,
especially in his formative years, that helped to make him more idealistic
than even we, his supporters, may give him credit for. There is the fact
that he trained and worked to overcome the odds against him. The fact that
he became an excellent and faithful administrator of his brother's policies,
despite his youth and less than imposing physique. The fact that he not
only didn't plot and plan to become king, but that he seems to have had to
react, albeit generally prudently and quickly, to the unexpected tide of
events when Edward died. The fact that he did attempt to rule and judge
justly and mercifully both during his overlordship in the North and during
his brief reign. The fact that what he was doing was largely resented by the
powerful magnates who opposed him and wasn't properly appreciated by many of
those with more modest resources, who in any case probably would not have
had enough power to change the course of events. And the fact that he was
not only not too ruthless, but if anything, was not ruthless enough, which
thereby laid the foundation for the eventual success of those of traitorous
inclination who were indeed ruthless enough. The fact that he was an
honourable man, and there were some lines that he just wouldn't cross.
Actually, as I start listing his various traits, it becomes inconceivable
to me that he ever would have "disposed" of his nephews - although it is
possible that another of his associates did so, without his knowledge and
against his wishes.

As I wrote some time ago, I think Richard's life became a series of
increasingly unpleasant choices ("damned if he did; damned if he didn't").
That he continued to do his duty, regardless of his own personal wishes. And
as a result was vilified by his successors, the usurpers, and his reputation
remains tainted to this day. I agree with the aims of the Society that some
things are worth fighting for, even after 500 years, and clearing Richard's
reputation is one of those things. But that's just my two farthings. <smile>

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 10:12 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Size matters!

I have always liked the idea of Richard as an underdog - the small brother
of two magnificent specimans of manhood! Then this kid works and trains to
become a great knight and lord of the North. Straight out of a fairy tale!
As I've said before, he has always reminded me of "Wart" in White's classic
"The Once and Future King."

Of course I could be wrong about this! But until proven wrong, I'm gonna
stick to this romantic idea. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All -
>
> Speaking of Richard's having his small size working against him in the
king
> department, I just found this on the Wikipedia page about Martin Luther,
in
> the section called "Depiction of Luther."
>
>
>
> "In the 1530's and 1540's, printed images of Luther that emphasized his
> monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast
to
> images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with
a
> "double chin, strong mouth, piercing, deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and
squat
> neck." He was shown to be physically imposing, an equal in stature to the
> secular German princes with whom he would join forces to spread
Lutheranism.
> His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly
> pleasures like drinking or conjugal pleasures with his wife - behavior
that
> was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders.
> Famous images from this period include the woodcuts by Hans Brosamer
(1530)
> and Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger (1546)."
>
>
>
> The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
that
> Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
IV
> and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ishita wrote:
>
> Johanne, you are right.
> " Underdog" does not mean passive victim. Just that he fought against enormous odds. <snip>

Carol responds:

Just like his defenders even now!

Carol

We certainly do Carol.....on and on and on...neverending...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita wrote:
> >
> > Johanne, you are right.
> > " Underdog" does not mean passive victim. Just that he fought against enormous odds. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Just like his defenders even now!
>
> Carol
>

Eileen wrote:
>
> OFF TOPIC..but can someone tell me know I can stop all the messages going to my email...I have followed the Yahoo instruction as to receiving no emails and reading the messages on the web...this has not worked...I am pretty desperate as there are so many messages it is a pain...Any suggestions? .Eileen

Carol responds:

Strange. You should be able simply to click on Edit Membership and click Web Only, but I assume you've already tried that and it didn't work. I have mine set to Special Notices even though I almost never check my Yahoo e-mail. Maybe I had the same problem and just don't remember it? At any rate, I read and post online, usually with no trouble (unless Yahoo decides to act up).

Carol

Thanks Carol...Yes...tried that...does not make any difference....thank you anyway Eileen
On 2 Dec 2012, at 18:53, justcarol67 wrote:

> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > OFF TOPIC..but can someone tell me know I can stop all the messages going to my email...I have followed the Yahoo instruction as to receiving no emails and reading the messages on the web...this has not worked...I am pretty desperate as there are so many messages it is a pain...Any suggestions? .Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Strange. You should be able simply to click on Edit Membership and click Web Only, but I assume you've already tried that and it didn't work. I have mine set to Special Notices even though I almost never check my Yahoo e-mail. Maybe I had the same problem and just don't remember it? At any rate, I read and post online, usually with no trouble (unless Yahoo decides to act up).
>
> Carol
>
>

Hi, Weds -



I think you're right, that Richard was probably inclined to be introverted.
But of course that can be added to the qualities that I listed earlier, and
many others that cumulatively composed Richard's personality.



Introversion would be understandable in someone who came last in a big
family and for several of his formative years got knocked around from pillar
to post, had his father and his elder brother suddenly killed and probably
often didn't know if he'd have a place to shelter from one night to the
next.



I read something in Wilkinson (I'm pretty sure it was) that mentioned
brother George travelling to some place like London or Bruges and them
noting that (I paraphrase) "George was accompanied by his brother" - the
writer didn't even bother to mention Richard by name! That may have happened
to Richard often - being the youngest and smallest - he was probably often
overlooked and left to his own devices and his own imagination. If he was
enthralled with books and tales of chivalry, that is something I think most
of us who were bookworms as kids can understand. Oh, btw, Wilkinson also
mentions that Richard may well have encountered the old knight, Malory,
before the writing of *Morte d'Arthur* and heard many of his tales of
adventure.



Here's an illuminating excerpt from Wilkinson:



"The Victorian historian, Alfred Owen Legge contrasts the respective
dispositions of Richard and his brother George as he explains King Edward's
reasons for placing Richard under Warwick's tutelage: Upon the return of the
two boys from Utrecht, it was immediately obvious to the King that there was
a gulf of difference between their two personalities. George of Clarence was
amiable, sunny and light hearted. Richard, on the other hand, was pale of
face, with a reserved but courteous manner, whose love of reading commanded
respect rather than affection. Clarence had, moreover, a resolute and
restless spirit, to which Legge attributes King Edward's distrust of him.
Richard, he continues, was 'reserved, cautious, firm of will, endowed with
discretion beyond his years. In him we may believe that the sagacious King
detected the dawn of a fearless and subtle genius.' It was for this reason
that Edward sent Richard to learn the more physical pursuits of knighthood:
riding, hunting and the handling of weapons."



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne





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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Size matters!





I'm wondering if it might also have been a matter of Edward IV/Hal being
Extroverts, while Richard may have been more of an Introvert -- or at the
very least more reserved and watchful. Even in today's world, Extroverts are
"preferred" by society to Introverts, who aren't really understood.

~Weds

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:

<snipped>

> The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
that
> Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
IV and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne

Hi, Eileen -
My suggestion is to write to Neil the moderator and ask him for assistance.
You may have to leave the group and then reapply. If you choose to receive
only "Special Notices" upon your return, hopefully it will be effective at
that point.

Good luck!

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of eileen bates
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 3:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: OT group settings (Was: Size
matters!)

Thanks Carol...Yes...tried that...does not make any difference....thank you
anyway Eileen On 2 Dec 2012, at 18:53, justcarol67 wrote:

> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > OFF TOPIC..but can someone tell me know I can stop all the messages
> > going to my email...I have followed the Yahoo instruction as to
> > receiving no emails and reading the messages on the web...this has
> > not worked...I am pretty desperate as there are so many messages it
> > is a pain...Any suggestions? .Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Strange. You should be able simply to click on Edit Membership and click
Web Only, but I assume you've already tried that and it didn't work. I have
mine set to Special Notices even though I almost never check my Yahoo
e-mail. Maybe I had the same problem and just don't remember it? At any
rate, I read and post online, usually with no trouble (unless Yahoo decides
to act up).
>
> Carol
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

We know a out Richard's Knightly studies but never hear anything about George. Was he at the Warwick's household too? Or any other places for his training?

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

On Dec 2, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Hi, Weds -
>
> I think you're right, that Richard was probably inclined to be introverted.
> But of course that can be added to the qualities that I listed earlier, and
> many others that cumulatively composed Richard's personality.
>
> Introversion would be understandable in someone who came last in a big
> family and for several of his formative years got knocked around from pillar
> to post, had his father and his elder brother suddenly killed and probably
> often didn't know if he'd have a place to shelter from one night to the
> next.
>
> I read something in Wilkinson (I'm pretty sure it was) that mentioned
> brother George travelling to some place like London or Bruges and them
> noting that (I paraphrase) "George was accompanied by his brother" - the
> writer didn't even bother to mention Richard by name! That may have happened
> to Richard often - being the youngest and smallest - he was probably often
> overlooked and left to his own devices and his own imagination. If he was
> enthralled with books and tales of chivalry, that is something I think most
> of us who were bookworms as kids can understand. Oh, btw, Wilkinson also
> mentions that Richard may well have encountered the old knight, Malory,
> before the writing of *Morte d'Arthur* and heard many of his tales of
> adventure.
>
> Here's an illuminating excerpt from Wilkinson:
>
> "The Victorian historian, Alfred Owen Legge contrasts the respective
> dispositions of Richard and his brother George as he explains King Edward's
> reasons for placing Richard under Warwick's tutelage: Upon the return of the
> two boys from Utrecht, it was immediately obvious to the King that there was
> a gulf of difference between their two personalities. George of Clarence was
> amiable, sunny and light hearted. Richard, on the other hand, was pale of
> face, with a reserved but courteous manner, whose love of reading commanded
> respect rather than affection. Clarence had, moreover, a resolute and
> restless spirit, to which Legge attributes King Edward's distrust of him.
> Richard, he continues, was 'reserved, cautious, firm of will, endowed with
> discretion beyond his years. In him we may believe that the sagacious King
> detected the dawn of a fearless and subtle genius.' It was for this reason
> that Edward sent Richard to learn the more physical pursuits of knighthood:
> riding, hunting and the handling of weapons."
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Size matters!
>
> I'm wondering if it might also have been a matter of Edward IV/Hal being
> Extroverts, while Richard may have been more of an Introvert -- or at the
> very least more reserved and watchful. Even in today's world, Extroverts are
> "preferred" by society to Introverts, who aren't really understood.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> > portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> > saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
> that
> > Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> > But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> > attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
> IV and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
>
>
>
>

Thank Johanne...I did think I would have to do that in the end...cheers me dear :0)

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen -
> My suggestion is to write to Neil the moderator and ask him for assistance.
> You may have to leave the group and then reapply. If you choose to receive
> only "Special Notices" upon your return, hopefully it will be effective at
> that point.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
> - Jesus of Nazareth
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of eileen bates
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 3:56 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: OT group settings (Was: Size
> matters!)
>
> Thanks Carol...Yes...tried that...does not make any difference....thank you
> anyway Eileen On 2 Dec 2012, at 18:53, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> > Eileen wrote:
> > >
> > > OFF TOPIC..but can someone tell me know I can stop all the messages
> > > going to my email...I have followed the Yahoo instruction as to
> > > receiving no emails and reading the messages on the web...this has
> > > not worked...I am pretty desperate as there are so many messages it
> > > is a pain...Any suggestions? .Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Strange. You should be able simply to click on Edit Membership and click
> Web Only, but I assume you've already tried that and it didn't work. I have
> mine set to Special Notices even though I almost never check my Yahoo
> e-mail. Maybe I had the same problem and just don't remember it? At any
> rate, I read and post online, usually with no trouble (unless Yahoo decides
> to act up).
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

The first thing that I would do to "block" unwelcome email, would be to go to your network provider (ISP) and find out how they handle mail, all ISPs have a provision for enabling or disabling mail accounts.
Then use the filter provided to filter unwanted mail to junk, depending how you use the Internet I.e. Microsoft Outlook, Yahoo mail , Apple OS etc. then you also can select specific addresses to junk or even entire countries (I have banned Nigeria as I really do not want to know about the death of a very rich minister etc)
You should also be using a reputable anti-virus program (I use AVG) especially if you are on a Microsoft O/S or still using AOL.
My main statement on mail is, only accept something from a known sender, Never Never open a document or file unless you are expecting the email as opening a file tells the computer to do whatever may be in the file!
Everything that I have mentioned is covered under help both on the Internet and with your operating systems .....so use your browser and ask whatever you need to know and frightened to ask ......have we found R3 For example

Regards

George


Sent from my iPad

On Dec 2, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> OFF TOPIC..but can someone tell me know I can stop all the messages going to my email...I have followed the Yahoo instruction as to receiving no emails and reading the messages on the web...this has not worked...I am pretty desperate as there are so many messages it is a pain...Any suggestions? .Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
> >
> > So well said, Johanne. I didn't realize I may have stumbled into some tall grass by calling Richard an "underdog"! Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Maire!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with you, although there was a bit of an uproar around here a couple
> > > months ago when I wrote that I thought that Richard was an underdog. Perhaps
> > > others interpret the word somewhat differently than I do - to me it means a
> > > person who is facing seemingly overwhelming odds, with whom one tends to
> > > sympathize at least in part because the deck does seem stacked against him.
> > > I think Richard enjoyed important periods of relative tranquility,
> > > especially in his formative years, that helped to make him more idealistic
> > > than even we, his supporters, may give him credit for. There is the fact
> > > that he trained and worked to overcome the odds against him. The fact that
> > > he became an excellent and faithful administrator of his brother's policies,
> > > despite his youth and less than imposing physique. The fact that he not
> > > only didn't plot and plan to become king, but that he seems to have had to
> > > react, albeit generally prudently and quickly, to the unexpected tide of
> > > events when Edward died. The fact that he did attempt to rule and judge
> > > justly and mercifully both during his overlordship in the North and during
> > > his brief reign. The fact that what he was doing was largely resented by the
> > > powerful magnates who opposed him and wasn't properly appreciated by many of
> > > those with more modest resources, who in any case probably would not have
> > > had enough power to change the course of events. And the fact that he was
> > > not only not too ruthless, but if anything, was not ruthless enough, which
> > > thereby laid the foundation for the eventual success of those of traitorous
> > > inclination who were indeed ruthless enough. The fact that he was an
> > > honourable man, and there were some lines that he just wouldn't cross.
> > > Actually, as I start listing his various traits, it becomes inconceivable
> > > to me that he ever would have "disposed" of his nephews - although it is
> > > possible that another of his associates did so, without his knowledge and
> > > against his wishes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I wrote some time ago, I think Richard's life became a series of
> > > increasingly unpleasant choices ("damned if he did; damned if he didn't").
> > > That he continued to do his duty, regardless of his own personal wishes. And
> > > as a result was vilified by his successors, the usurpers, and his reputation
> > > remains tainted to this day. I agree with the aims of the Society that some
> > > things are worth fighting for, even after 500 years, and clearing Richard's
> > > reputation is one of those things. But that's just my two farthings. <smile>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 10:12 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Size matters!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have always liked the idea of Richard as an underdog - the small brother
> > > of two magnificent specimans of manhood! Then this kid works and trains to
> > > become a great knight and lord of the North. Straight out of a fairy tale!
> > > As I've said before, he has always reminded me of "Wart" in White's classic
> > > "The Once and Future King."
> > >
> > > Of course I could be wrong about this! But until proven wrong, I'm gonna
> > > stick to this romantic idea. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> > > <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, All -
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of Richard's having his small size working against him in the
> > > king
> > > > department, I just found this on the Wikipedia page about Martin Luther,
> > > in
> > > > the section called "Depiction of Luther."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "In the 1530's and 1540's, printed images of Luther that emphasized his
> > > > monumental size were crucial to the spread of Protestantism. In contrast
> > > to
> > > > images of frail Catholic saints, Luther was presented as a stout man with
> > > a
> > > > "double chin, strong mouth, piercing, deep-set eyes, fleshy face, and
> > > squat
> > > > neck." He was shown to be physically imposing, an equal in stature to the
> > > > secular German princes with whom he would join forces to spread
> > > Lutheranism.
> > > > His large body also let the viewer know that he did not shun earthly
> > > > pleasures like drinking or conjugal pleasures with his wife - behavior
> > > that
> > > > was a stark contrast to the ascetic life of the medieval religious orders.
> > > > Famous images from this period include the woodcuts by Hans Brosamer
> > > (1530)
> > > > and Lucas Cranach the Elder and Lucas Cranach the Younger (1546)."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> > > > portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> > > > saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
> > > that
> > > > Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> > > > But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> > > > attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
> > > IV
> > > > and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > >
> > > > or jltournier@
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Hi, Ishita!

That's true  George generally gets short shrift in books about Richard, understandably I guess. Wilkinson has quite a bit about him, and I have read elsewhere, besides in her book, that Edward started out by favouring George, apparently  he was 3 years older than Richard, after all. He was made Duke of Clarencee some time (3 months?) before Richard was made Duke of Gloucester. But they were both made Knights of the Bath at the same time to help celebrate Edward's coronation. And as time passed, Edward seemed to place more and more trust in Richard than in George.



Wilkinson (first place I've seen this) indicates that George had reason to be wooed and won (figuratively, that is) by Warwick, at least in part because of the following: George had been Edward's presumptive heir until he had his first child, Elizabeth. Also, George had been hoping for a fortunate marriage with a royal or noble young lady of standing, as part of Edward's negotiations with Philip of France and the Duke of Burgundy, but neither happened, although sister Margaret was hooked up with Burgundy. And the English ladies who would have made suitable matches for George (and Richard), except for Warwick's two daughters, were married off to members of the Wydeville clan, and Edward refused to agree to George marrying Isabel. So, Wilkinson makes it clear that it is understandable that George would have been disgruntled. But she also presents evidence that it is likely that Warwick attempted to woo Richard in much the same way as he wooed George, but Richard, faced with a choice between his tutor and his king, chose wisely. In other words, despite the fact that Richard was not lavished with estates and favours (although he did receive some), he stayed loyal to Edward. As Wilkinson makes clear, had he opposed Edward openly, there would have been nowhere for Richard to hide.



Bottom line  Wilkinson doesn't mention where George would have obtained his training as a knight. If he had been placed with Warwick, I think it would have been mentioned. However, Wilkinson does indicate that Richard may have obtained some training in chivalry when he was a refugee at Burgundy's court, and since George was there, too, it's probably even more likely, at three years older, that he would have received more serious training than Richard did at that point.



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 Richard Yahoo
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 5:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Size matters!





We know a out Richard's Knightly studies but never hear anything about George. Was he at the Warwick's household too? Or any other places for his training?

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

On Dec 2, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:

> Hi, Weds -
>
> I think you're right, that Richard was probably inclined to be introverted.
> But of course that can be added to the qualities that I listed earlier, and
> many others that cumulatively composed Richard's personality.
>
> Introversion would be understandable in someone who came last in a big
> family and for several of his formative years got knocked around from pillar
> to post, had his father and his elder brother suddenly killed and probably
> often didn't know if he'd have a place to shelter from one night to the
> next.
>
> I read something in Wilkinson (I'm pretty sure it was) that mentioned
> brother George travelling to some place like London or Bruges and them
> noting that (I paraphrase) "George was accompanied by his brother" - the
> writer didn't even bother to mention Richard by name! That may have happened
> to Richard often - being the youngest and smallest - he was probably often
> overlooked and left to his own devices and his own imagination. If he was
> enthralled with books and tales of chivalry, that is something I think most
> of us who were bookworms as kids can understand. Oh, btw, Wilkinson also
> mentions that Richard may well have encountered the old knight, Malory,
> before the writing of *Morte d'Arthur* and heard many of his tales of
> adventure.
>
> Here's an illuminating excerpt from Wilkinson:
>
> "The Victorian historian, Alfred Owen Legge contrasts the respective
> dispositions of Richard and his brother George as he explains King Edward's
> reasons for placing Richard under Warwick's tutelage: Upon the return of the
> two boys from Utrecht, it was immediately obvious to the King that there was
> a gulf of difference between their two personalities. George of Clarence was
> amiable, sunny and light hearted. Richard, on the other hand, was pale of
> face, with a reserved but courteous manner, whose love of reading commanded
> respect rather than affection. Clarence had, moreover, a resolute and
> restless spirit, to which Legge attributes King Edward's distrust of him.
> Richard, he continues, was 'reserved, cautious, firm of will, endowed with
> discretion beyond his years. In him we may believe that the sagacious King
> detected the dawn of a fearless and subtle genius.' It was for this reason
> that Edward sent Richard to learn the more physical pursuits of knighthood:
> riding, hunting and the handling of weapons."
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 12:38 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Size matters!
>
> I'm wondering if it might also have been a matter of Edward IV/Hal being
> Extroverts, while Richard may have been more of an Introvert -- or at the
> very least more reserved and watchful. Even in today's world, Extroverts are
> "preferred" by society to Introverts, who aren't really understood.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > The portraits of Edward IV and Henry VIII are in the same mold, while the
> > portraits of Richard show a young man more in the mold of those ascetic
> > saints of yore. Given the examples of earthly worldliness, I would say
> that
> > Richard's being on the ascetic (and idealistic) side was not a bad thing!
> > But it's possible that the English as a people were at that point more
> > attracted to the bluff, hale, and hearty images projected by both Edward
> IV and Hal than they were by a man with almost ascetic qualities.
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
>
>
>
>